Editorial: Painting involves a sequential application of layers, each of which adheres satisfactorily only if the underlying layer has been properly applied. Education is, in this respect, like the craft of painting. Since the most important steps in painting are preparation of the surface to be painted and application of the primer coat, it makes sense to suppose that _______.

Summary

Painting involves the application of layers. Subsequent layers of paint adhere only when the underlying layer has been properly applied. The most important steps in painting are preparing the surface to be painted and applying the primer coat. Education, in this respect, is similar to painting.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

It makes sense to suppose that the success of a student’s education requires a satisfactory preliminary steps.

A
in the educator’s initial contact with a student, the educator should be as undemanding as possible

We don’t know how an education should act towards students.

B
students who have a secure grasp of the fundamentals of a subject are likely to make progress in that subject

We don’t know whether a student’s grasp of the fundamentals would likely lead to progress in that subject. We only know that the fundamentals are required in order to have a chance at grasping a subject.

C
educators who are not achieving the goals they intended should revise their teaching methods

We don’t know what educators should do. We only know what are the most important factors for a student’s education.

D
teaching new students is rewarding but much more difficult than teaching more advanced students

We don’t know which types of students are more difficult to teach.

E
the success of a student’s overall educational experience depends above all upon that student’s initial educational experience

If the most important factors for the success of painting are preparing and priming the surface, then the most important factors for the success of education is the initial educational experience.


22 comments

Scientist: Given the human tendency to explore and colonize new areas, some people believe that the galaxy will eventually be colonized by trillions of humans. If so, the vast majority of humans ever to live would be alive during this period of colonization. Since all of us are humans and we have no reason to think we are unrepresentative, the odds are overwhelming that we would be alive during this period, too. But, because we are not alive during this period, the odds are slim that such colonization will ever happen.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
It’s unlikely that humans will ever colonize the galaxy. Why? Because if humans were to colonize the galaxy, there would be trillions of us. (The galaxy is huge.) If there there were trillions of us, then the overwhelming majority of humans ever to exist would exist during that galaxy-colonized period. We exist. There’s no reason to think we’re unrepresentative of all humans. Yet we do not live in the galaxy-colonized period. Hence, it’s unlikely that humans will ever colonize the galaxy.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Similar to the contrapositive argument. Author reasons that if something were to occur, it would have a consequence. But that consequence is false. Hence, that something is unlikely to occur.

A
reasoning that because an event has not occurred, that event has a low probability of occurring
Descriptively inaccurate. (A) thinks the author’s argument is that because we have not yet colonized the galaxy we will therefore probably not colonize the galaxy. Rather, a main premise is that we’re not alive during a galaxy-colonized period.
B
drawing a conclusion that implicitly contradicts one of the premises that the argument accepts
Descriptively inaccurate. The conclusion contradicts and rejects other people’s prediction that humans will one day colonize the galaxy.
C
taking for granted that dependable predictions about the future cannot ever be made simply on the basis of the present facts
Descriptively inaccurate. In fact, the author assumes just the opposite. His argument attempts to make a prediction about the future on the basis of present facts.
D
inferring that since an event that is taken to be likely on a given hypothesis has not occurred, the hypothesis is probably false
Descriptively accurate. Author infers that since we are not alive during the galaxy-colonized period, that the hypothesis that we will one day colonize the galaxy is probably false.
E
making a prediction far into the future based on established human tendencies
Descriptively inaccurate. Premise descriptor is inaccurate. Author does not base his prediction on “established human tendencies.” Instead, he bases it on probability and the total number of humans .

39 comments

Professor Riley characterized the university president’s speech as inflammatory and argued that it was therefore inappropriate. However, Riley has had a long-standing feud with the president, and so we should not conclude that her speech was inflammatory solely on the basis of Riley’s testimony. Therefore, unless there are independent reasons to deem the president’s speech inflammatory, it is not true that her speech was inappropriate.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Riley argues that the president’s speech was nflammatory, so therefore it’s inappropriate.

The author points out that Riley has had a feud with the president, so we shouldn’t believe that the speech was inflammatory merely because Riley says it was.

Thus, the author concludes that if we don’t have any independent reason to think the speech was inflammatory, the speech was not inappropriate.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Riley’s long-standing feud with the president constitutes a reason we should not accept Riley’s claim that the speech was inflammatory as conclusive evidence that it was inflammatory.

The author also assumes that being inflammatory is the only way for the speech to have been inappropriate. In other words, the author’s overlooking the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate even if it was not inflammatory.

A
takes for granted that the speech could not be inappropriate if it was not inflammatory
The author assumes that if the speech wasn’t inflammatory, then it wasn’t inappropriate. This overlooks the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate for other reasons.
B
fails to adequately address the possibility that inflammatory speeches may be appropriate for some audiences
The author’s position is that we don’t have evidence the speech was inflammatory. So what’s possible in the event the speech was inflammatory doesn’t matter. The argument concerns what a non-inflammatory speech would imply.
C
favors the university president’s side in a dispute simply because of the president’s privileged standing
We don’t know what the president’s side in the dispute is, and we don’t know whether the author favors it. In addition, the author doesn’t rely on the president’s standing as support for the conclusion.
D
concludes that Riley’s claim is false merely on the grounds that Riley has something to gain if the claim is accepted as true
The author does point out that Riley has been in a feud with the president, but that doesn’t imply that Riley has anything to gain from people thinking the speech was inappropriate. So the author’s conclusion is not based on the idea that Riley has something to gain.
E
fails to adequately address the possibility that Riley’s animosity toward the university president is well founded
Whether Riley’s feelings about the president are justified is irrelevant. The issue is whether the president’s speech was inappropriate, and whether there are other ways for it to be inappropriate besides being inflammatory.

37 comments