Summary
Whenever considering voting in an election, and there’s at least one issue important:
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but if disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → acceptable to vote for candidate X.
If disagree with candidate X on an important issue, but do NOT disagree with ALL other candidates on a greater # of important issues → NOT acceptable to vote for candidate X.
In the upcoming election, there’s only 1 issue important. Kay agrees with Medina on that issue. Kay does not agree with Legrand or Norton on that issue.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
It is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. This is because she disagrees with them on an important issue, but she does not disagree with all other candidates on a greater # of important issues. (She agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue, and there are no other important issues. So if she disagrees with Legrand and Norton on that issue, there’s no way that she can disagree with all other candidates, including Medina, on a greater # of important issues.)
A
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for either Medina or Legrand, but it is unacceptable for her to vote for Norton
Anti-supported, because it is not acceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand. (See summary for explanation.)
B
the only unacceptable courses of action are for Kay to vote for Norton and for her to vote for Legrand
Supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. (See summary for explanation.)
C
it is unacceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Not supported, because it’s possible that voting for Medina is acceptable. We have no reason to think it’s unacceptable to vote for Medina, because Kay agrees with Medina on the 1 important issue.
D
the only unacceptable course of action is for Kay to vote for Medina
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
E
it is acceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates
Anti-supported, because it’s unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton.
Summary
The argument concludes that it’s ill founded to call Linsey a bad songwriter because her lyrics are disjointed and subjective. Why? Because many modern novelists write in a way that is disjointed and subjective, but are considered to be good writers.
Notable Assumptions
The argument defends Linsey based on an analogy between her songwriting and the writing of modern novelists. For this analogy to make sense, the argument must assume that songwriting and modern novels are relevantly analogous—that this writing style has a similar effect in both types of writing.
A
Disjointed and subjective writing has a comparable effect in modern novels and in songs.
In other words, modern novels and songwriting are relevantly analogous when considering this writing style. This is the only way that modern novels can provide any insight into the quality of Linsey’s songwriting, making it a necessary assumption.
B
Some readers do not appreciate the subtleties of the disjointed and subjective style adopted by modern novelists.
This just doesn’t make any difference—we already know that these novelists are “widely held” to be good writers, so whether some people don’t like them isn’t relevant, much less necessary.
C
Song lyrics that are disjointed and subjective have at least as much narrative structure as any other song lyrics do.
The argument never brings up the idea of narrative structure as a way to assess the quality of songwriting, so this is irrelevant.
D
A disjointed and subjective style of writing is usually more suitable for novels and song lyrics than it is for any other written works.
The argument is only focused on song lyrics and novels, so whether or not this writing style is suitable for other works makes no difference.
E
The quality of Linsey’s songs is better judged by the quality of their lyrics than by the quality of their musical form.
The argument only talks about Linsey’s merit as a songwriter, so it’s irrelevant to say whether her songwriting or her musical form is more important.
Summary
The argument concludes that predictions of the future are particularly unreliable when they relate to societies with frequent scientific and technological discoveries. This is supported by the claim that scientific and technological discoveries have significant effects on how a society develops.
Notable Assumptions
The argument’s inference between discoveries impacting the future and the future being harder to predict when there are frequent discoveries only makes sense if discoveries make the future harder to predict. This means the argument must assume either that the discoveries themselves are difficult to predict, or that their effects are difficult to predict.
A
Predictions of scientific and technological discoveries, or predictions of their effects, have harmful consequences in some societies.
The argument doesn’t depend on whether predictions are harmful or not—the conclusion is just about how reliable predictions are, not their consequences.
B
The development of a society requires scientific and technological discoveries.
The argument isn’t concerned with what it takes for a society to develop, only how reliable predictions are under certain conditions.
C
Forecasts of scientific and technological discoveries, or forecasts of their effects, are not entirely reliable.
In other words, it is difficult to predict discoveries, or to predict their effects. Without this assumption, there would be no link between frequent discoveries and difficulty predicting the future, so this assumption is necessary for the argument to hold up.
D
An advanced scientific and technological society frequently benefits from new discoveries.
The consequences of discoveries are irrelevant to the argument, which is just focused on how discoveries impact the accuracy of future predictions.
E
It is not as difficult to predict scientific and technological discoveries in a technologically more advanced society as it is in a technologically less advanced society.
Whether discoveries are easier or harder to predict in certain societies has no impact on the argument, which just generally claims that discoveries make predictions less accurate.