Summarize Argument
The author concludes that parents should reduce the amount of stimulation that their babies receive. The author references a study in which babies with a less stimulating daytime routine slept an average of two hours more each day compared to babies with a more stimulating daytime routine. To connect this study to the conclusion, the author claims that sleep is very important for children’s development.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that sleeping more is better for babies––what if there is a point at which too much sleep becomes detrimental? Also, the author assumes that the studies were conducted in a way that allows their results to be applied to babies in general. The author also assumes that sleep would be better for babies than the stimulation that is being sacrificed in order to enhance their sleep.
A
Babies’ muscular coordination is unaffected by the amount of stimulation they receive.
The argument connects stimulation to sleep, and assumes that more sleep is better for babies. Muscular coordination being unaffected by stimulation is unrelated to the argument.
B
Babies with less stimulating routines usually get extra sleep during the day.
Whether the sleep occurred during the day or at night is not relevant to the argument; the argument only discusses average sleep time.
C
Studies showed no correlation between stimulation and amount of sleep for children three years of age or older.
The argument is about infants and discusses a study on six month old babies. Facts about children three years old and older is not relevant to the argument.
D
The babies who had a less stimulating routine gained weight at an average rate.
We don’t know anything about the weight gain of babies with a more stimulating routine. (D) just gives a separate fact about an unrelated factor for one of the two groups of babies, so this does not weaken the judgement made in the argument.
E
The stimulation that babies receive helps them to develop intellectually.
(E) introduces an aspect of net effect. (E) shows that babies with a less stimulating daytime routine may be missing out on intellectual development. This weakens the argument because it provides a reason that a more stimulating daytime routine may be beneficial.
Mary: High courts have repudiated precedents in the past, but they were careful to do so only when the previous rulings were old and had clearly become outdated. The recently overturned rulings were themselves recent. Overturning any recent legal ruling diminishes the law, which comes to be viewed as unstable and capricious.
Speaker 1 Summary
Recently, the high court has overturned earlier decisions. There’s been criticism of the court on the grounds that judges’ willingness to follow precedent is necessary to avoid legal chaos. Tom rejects this criticism, because judges have often overturned legal precedent in the past without causing harm.
Speaker 2 Summary
Mary agrees that judges have overturned precedent in the past, but says that this was only when the previous rulings were old and outdated. The high court’s recent decisions overturned more recent decisions, which makes people view the law as unstable. Her implicit point is that the criticism of the court’s recent decisions is valid.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the criticism of the high court’s recent decisions is valid. Tom thinks it isn’t, but Mary thinks it is.
A
whether the overturning of recent high court precedents will harm the legal system
This is a point of disagreement. Tom thinks the high court’s recent decisions overturning precedents won’t lead to harm. We know this because he thinks we should ignore the criticism of those decisions. Mary thinks the decisions diminish the law, or in other words, cause harm.
B
whether the overturning of recent high court precedents was politically motivated
Neither speaker comments on whether the high court’s decisions were politically motivated. Tom refers to the political motivations of critics of the decisions. But he doesn’t say anything about the motivations of the court.
C
whether critics of recent high court decisions in fact advanced the claim Tom cites
Mary doesn’t express an opinion about this. She doesn’t comment on criticism of recent high court rulings and whether Tom’s characterization of that criticism is accurate.
D
whether a precedent that is clearly outdated is in need of being overturned
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Tom doesn’t say anything about outdated precedents or the need to overturn them. Mary thinks overturning outdated precedents is acceptable, but doesn’t say whether we need to overturn them.
E
whether judicial decisions that seem progressive at first can quickly become outdated
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Tom doesn’t say anything about outdated precedents or progressive decisions. Mary doesn’t say anything about progressive decisions or how quickly they can be outdated.
Mary: High courts have repudiated precedents in the past, but they were careful to do so only when the previous rulings were old and had clearly become outdated. The recently overturned rulings were themselves recent. Overturning any recent legal ruling diminishes the law, which comes to be viewed as unstable and capricious.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Mary disagrees with Tom’s conclusion that critic’s objections to recent high court decisions ought to be ignored. As evidence, Mary points out that high courts in the past repudiated precedent when those previous rulings were outdated. However, the recently overturned rulings were themselves recent. Overturning recent rulings diminishes the law and is perceived as unstable and capricious.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Mary counters the position held by Tom. She does this by making a crucial distinction between situations that Tom presents as analogous. It may be true that past high court repudiations have caused no harm to the legal system, but repudiations of recent rulings may cause harm to the legal system. Tom’s argument does not account for this distinction.
A
She questions Tom’s claim about the effects of reversals by high courts of the past.
Mary does not question tom’s claim about what occurred in the past. In fact, she concedes that in the past high courts would repudiate decisions because they were old and clearly outdated.
B
She agrees to Tom’s evaluation of certain critics’ motives, but introduces evidence to show that it is usually difficult to discern such motives in practice.
Mary does not agree to Tom’s evaluation regarding the critics’ motives. At best she ignores Tom’s evaluation by not addressing it explicitly.
C
She defends a practice against Tom’s criticisms by citing evidence to show that it has usually been resorted to only after due deliberation.
Tom does not criticize the practice of high courts repudiating past decisions. In fact, Tom defends this practice against some critics’ objections.
D
She points out that Tom’s conclusion rests on an assumption that is contradicted by the evidence Tom presents.
The assumption underlying Tom’s conclusion is the high court’s recent repudiation is similar to past high courts repudiating decisions. Mary presents evidence to counter this assumption by introducing a distinction between the present and the past.
E
She introduces a distinction between two kinds of situations in which precedents are overturned, in order to argue for a difference that Tom fails to take into account.
The distinction Mary introduces is the distinction between the kinds of decisions the high court overruled in the past and the decisions the high court recently repudiated.