Summarize Argument
An Astronomer believes that the conditions in our solar system have likely favored the emergence of life when compared to the conditions of most other solar systems of a similar age. This is because any form of life needs adequate amounts of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, and our sun has an unusually high supply of these heavier elements for its age.
Identify Argument Part
This is one of two premises that support the Astronomer’s main conclusion.
A
It is a statement for which no evidence is provided and that is part of the evidence offered for the argument’s only conclusion.
No evidence is provided for this claim, and it is used (alongside the rest of the sentence) to support the Astronomer’s main (and only) conclusion.
B
It is a statement for which no evidence is provided and that is offered as support for another statement that in turn is offered as support for the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
While no evidence is provided for this claim, it does not support another statement. The fact that our sun has large amounts of these heavy elements works independently does not receive any support. They both support the Astronomer’s main conclusion
C
It is a statement for which some evidence is provided and that itself is offered as support for the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
There is no evidence provided for this claim. This receives no support anywhere in the argument; it only gives support to the main conclusion.
D
It is the conclusion of the argument as a whole and is supported by another statement for which support is offered.
This is not the conclusion of the argument because it does not receive any support. The conclusion is about our solar system being more favorable for the development of life
E
It is one of two conclusions in the argument, neither of which is offered as support for the other.
This is not a conclusion because it does not receive any support. Furthermore, there is only one conclusion in this argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the group needs at least 30 volunteers in order for Garson to have a chance of winning the election. This is because in order for her to win, the public must be fully informed of her record, and in order for the public to be fully informed of her record, she needs 30 people to campaign for her. The campaign can’t pay 30 people to campaign, so they need to be volunteers.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assessment of what’s required in order for Garson to have a chance of winning the election: “Our group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers if Marcia Garson is to have a chance of winning the election.”
A
Marcia Garson will probably not be elected.
The author never states or implies this, so it can’t be the conclusion.
B
The political organizer’s group cannot afford to pay people to campaign for Marcia Garson.
This is a premise. This is why the group needs to assemble volunteers (as opposed to paid campaigners) in order for Garson to have a chance of winning.
C
If winning the election is to be a possibility for Marcia Garson, the political organizer’s group needs to bring together at least 30 volunteers.
This is a paraphrase of the conclusion.
D
If the public is not fully informed about Marcia Garson’s record, she will not win the election.
This is the contrapositive of one of the premises. The author uses the fact that people need to be fully informed about Garson’s record in order for her to win to support the conclusion that the group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers for Garson to win.
E
At least 30 people from the political organizer’s group need to campaign for Marcia Garson in order to fully inform the public about her record.
This is one of the premises. The author uses this to support the conclusion that we need at least 30 volunteers in order for Garson to have a chance of winning.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientists hypothesize that humans, who arrived just before the last ice age ended, caused sloths to start disappearing from the Americas around 10,000 years ago and eventually to go extinct. This is supported by the fact that humans’ arrival and sloths’ disappearance happened around the same time.
Notable Assumptions
The scientists assume that humans could have caused the extinction of all giant ground sloths worldwide. They also assume that there are no alternative hypotheses, like other predators, natural disasters, or disease, to explain the sloths’ disappearance.
A
Scientists have not found any physical evidence to support the idea that giant ground sloths were hunted to extinction.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that humans may not have been responsible for sloths’ extinction, since no physical evidence of hunting has been found.
B
Species of smaller tree-dwelling sloths continue to live throughout South and Central America.
The scientists’ argument only addresses giant ground sloths that did go extinct. The survival of other kinds of sloths is irrelevant.
C
Their large size made the giant ground sloths less adaptable than most other ground mammals.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that the scientists’ original hypothesis- that giant ground sloths failed to adapt to climate changes- may have been correct after all.
D
Giant ground sloths are not the only large mammals that began to disappear from the Americas around 10,000 years ago.
This fails to address the cause of the giant ground sloths’ disappearance. Even if other large mammals also began disappearing at the same time, (D) doesn’t strengthen the hypothesis that humans are responsible for these disappearances.
E
One type of giant ground sloth survived on isolated islands until human beings arrived there well after the last ice age.
Some giant ground sloths survived long after the last ice age, meaning they didn’t disappear due to climate changes. These sloths only disappeared after humans arrived, which strengthens the hypothesis that humans were responsible for their extinction.
Natalie: You mistake the films’ startling sameness for evidence of a lack of creativity. It would be more accurate to say that he ultimately creates strong new works from the same core elements, and these works are thus original.
Speaker 1 Summary
Minh believes that a certain director is “pillaging” his past work, but not getting much value from doing so. In support, Minh points out that the director’s recent films are very predictable, and in fact are nothing more than repetitions of his past films.
Speaker 2 Summary
Natalie argues that the director’s recent work is actually original, despite their similarity to past films. How so? Because the director is using the same elements to create new works (rather than just repeating past works).
Objective
We need to find a point of agreement about the director’s recent films. Minh and Natalie agree that the recent films are very similar to the director’s previous films.
A
They share many features with his earlier films.
Minh agrees with this, and so does Natalie. Minh says that the new films are simply repetitions of the director’s earlier films. Natalie doesn’t go so far, but does say that the films have a “startling sameness” and use the same elements.
B
They constitute evidence that he is pillaging his own catalog.
Minh agrees with this, but Natalie does not. Natalie thinks that the recent films do not show a lack of creativity that amounts to just pillaging past works, but in fact are original.
C
They are nothing more than repetitions of the director’s earlier films.
Minh agrees with this, but Natalie disagrees. Natalie thinks that even though the new and old films use the same elements, the new films are original works.
D
They are less original than his earlier films.
Neither speaker directly compares the director’s newer films with his earlier films. Each speaker expresses an opinion about whether the new films are original, but neither talks about how the old films measure up.
E
They provide evidence of the director’s creativity.
Natalie agrees with this, but Minh doesn’t. Minh thinks that the new films are evidence that the director is just repeating his past works rather than coming up with original new films.
Summary
The author concludes that we should not reroute high-tension power lines away from heavily populated areas. Why? Because our resources should be spent to protect ONLY against well-substantiated threats to public health.
Missing Connection
Is having high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas a well-substantiated threat to public health? It might be...the premises don’t say it isn’t. So the author’s conclusion isn’t justified by the premise right now. In order to make the argument valid, we want to establish that high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas is NOT a well-substantiated threat to public health. This would then justify a claim that we shouldn’t spend resources trying to reroute the lines.
A
Public health would be damaged by the loss of electric power.
(A) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.
B
Proponents of expensive safety measures with respect to high-tension power lines ignore economic realities.
(B) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.
C
Scientific evidence exists for causal links between various modern practices and threats to public health.
(C) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.
D
No investigation of the effects of high-tension power lines has established any health threat to people.
If no investigation has shown any health threat from these lines, then the potential threat isn’t well-substantiated. In connection with the premise, this allows us to conclude we shouldn’t use any resources toward protecting the population from high-tension power lines.
E
Rerouting high-tension power lines away from heavily populated areas would hinder our ability to study the effects of power lines on people.
(E) doesn’t establish that high-tension power lines in heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat. So it doesn’t guarantee that we shouldn’t reroute the lines.