Relevant lessons: Introduction to sequencing games
At 10:55, J.Y. says, "you can put the H either here into 1 or you can stack the HS together" But you can't stack the HS together in this case. Q16 says, "the list of the sections located in aisle 2" and the answer choice (E) lists M R S as a full list, so you can't stack the HS together in the case of (E).
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that in the early 19th century, floors made out of narrow floorboards were likely a status symbol designed to convey a homeowner’s wealth. This is based on the fact that bigger houses tended to use narrower floorboards than smaller houses, and that bigger houses tended to be built for people who were richer than those for whom smaller houses were built.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no more likely explanation for the use of narrower floorboards in the bigger houses besides the idea that the floorboards were status symbols. This overlooks the possibility that there may have been other reasonable explanations, such as stylistic trends associated with bigger houses, or perhaps narrower floor boards were more functional for bigger houses or were cheaper to use in bigger houses.
A
More original floorboards have survived from big early nineteenth-century houses than from small early nineteenth-century houses.
The comparative number of surviving floorboards has no clear impact. We have no reason to think that having more floor boards survive helps show that the narrower floorboards were used as a status symbol.
B
In the early nineteenth century, a piece of narrow floorboard was not significantly less expensive than a piece of wide floorboard of the same length.
This eliminates an alternate explanation that narrower boards were used because they were much cheaper. In theory, homeowners might have been trying to save by using boards that were much cheaper. (B) says that’s not true, which makes the status symbol hypothesis more plausible.
C
In the early nineteenth century, smaller houses generally had fewer rooms than did bigger houses.
The number of rooms doesn’t have a clear impact on the purpose of the narrower floorboards. (C) helps show that narrower floorboards, which were used in bigger houses, tended to be used for a greater number of rooms. That doesn’t signify anything about the boards’ purpose.
D
Some early nineteenth-century houses had wide floorboards near the walls of each room and narrower floorboards in the center, where the floors were usually carpeted.
If anything, (D) might weaken by suggesting owners wanted to hide the use of narrower floorboards, but wanted to show off wider boards. This goes against the theory that owners used narrower boards as status symbols.
E
Many of the biggest early nineteenth-century houses but very few small houses from that period had some floors that were made of materials that were considerably more expensive than wood, such as marble.
So, some owners of bigger houses used materials that were more expensive than wood. But that doesn’t suggest anything about the purpose of narrower wooden floorboards. Perhaps other materials were used a status symbol; narrower boards may or may not also be a status symbol.
Anna: But the videocassette itself only accounts for 5 percent of the price a video rental store pays to buy a copy of a movie on video; most of the price consists of royalties the store pays to the studio that produced the movie. So the price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5 percent, and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies.
Summarize Argument
Without stating her conclusion directly, Anna argues that switching to the new videocassette will not save rental stores much money. Why? Because the actual videocassette costs little compared to royalties, and buying copies of movies more frequently would require the stores to pay those royalties more often.
Notable Assumptions
Anna assumes the new videocassette will not lead to a large increase in rentals. In addition, she assumes that rental stores routinely wear out videocassettes, or would do so if they switch to the new kind. She also assumes that a savings of far less than five percent is not “significantly more economical” than no savings, and that the royalties paid more often would be paid at a similar price.
A
The price that video rental stores pay for movies recorded on videocassettes is considerably less than the retail price of those movies.
This explains how the stores remain in business, not why switching to the new videocassette would save them money. If stores pay a small amount for videocassettes to begin with, then Tony’s position is more challenging to defend.
B
A significant proportion of the movies on videocassette purchased by video rental stores are bought as replacements for worn-out copies of movies the stores already have in stock.
This doesn’t imply the stores would avoid paying royalties on those purchases. It’s possible a store pays royalties each time it purchases a new videocassette, in which case this fact would not save rental stores money.
C
The royalty fee included in the price that video rental stores pay for movies on the new kind of videocassette will be half that included in the price of movies on the old kind.
This weakens Anna’s argument by questioning her assumption that the new videocassette would only save stores money on the physical copies. If stores will also save on royalty costs, their total savings may be much greater than 5 percent.
D
Given a choice, customers are more likely to buy a movie on videocassette than to rent it if the rental fee is more than half of the purchase price.
Since it is unknown how rental fees and purchase prices compare, this information is useless. It cannot be applied to video rental stores in total.
E
Many of the movies rented from video rental stores, particularly children’s movies, average several viewings per rental fee.
This may explain why the videocassettes get worn out, but does not support either speaker’s argument. Neither Anna nor Tony relies on the rate that videocassettes need replaced for their argument.
Maurice: But you are recommending nothing short of censorship! Besides which, your claim that television and movie depictions of violence cause violence is mistaken: violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries.
Summarize Argument
Jane argues violence among teenagers shouldn’t be shown in movies and on television, at least not in shows for young people. Why not? Because movies and television programs are influential, and many currently show violence among teenagers, meaning those programs likely cause young people to act violently.
Notable Assumptions
Jane assumes influential media containing violence between teenagers cause young people to act violently. This means assuming that young people are exposed to the violent depictions of teenagers and that those depictions have an impact on their behavior.
A
The most violent characters depicted in movies and on television programs are adult characters who are portrayed by adult actors.
This is irrelevant. Jane believes depictions of violence among teenagers in particular influence young people, so the most violent characters being adults doesn’t matter to her argument.
B
The movies that have been shown to have the most influence on young people’s behavior are those that are promoted to young audiences.
This strengthens Jane’s argument because it suggests that curbing violence between teenagers on shows marketed towards young people will have an effect on their behavior.
C
The people who make the most profits in the movie and television industry are those who can successfully promote their work to both young and old audiences.
This is irrelevant. Jane doesn’t claim prohibiting violent depictions will be easy, or even possible. Some people may resist such a ban, but that wouldn’t affect her conclusion, which is a value judgment.
D
Many adolescents who engage in violent behavior had already displayed such behavior before they were exposed to violence in movies.
This weakens Jane’s argument. It suggests violence shown in movies doesn’t cause much of the violence perpetrated by young people.
E
Among the producers who make both movies and television programs, many voluntarily restrict the subject matter of films directed toward young audiences.
This doesn’t mean the ban Jane’s advocating already exists, in whole or in part. There’s no indication such producers make shows meant for young people or that they exclude violence among teenagers from those shows.