Cynthia: Promoting innovation is certainly important. For this reason, patents should be granted only for truly innovative drugs, not for minor variants of previously existing drugs. Since it is much less expensive to tweak an existing drug than to develop a wholly new one, pharmaceutical companies tend to focus primarily on the cheaper alternative.
Speaker 1 Summary
Dario says that patents should be granted for all new drugs. Why? Because patents promote innovation. Dario supports this major premise by explaining that patents reward pharmaceutical companies for spending money on researching new drugs.
Speaker 2 Summary
Cynthia thinks that patents should only be granted for “truly innovative” new drugs, not absolutely all new drugs. Cynthia also supports this proposal by saying it will promote innovation. So how does limiting patents help innovation? Because it would deter companies from just developing variations on existing drugs, which is cheaper than coming up with truly new drugs.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Dario and Cynthia disagree about whether absolutely all new drug developments should be rewarded with patents.
A
pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for pursuing innovation
Both Dario and Cynthia agree with this. Both speakers want to encourage innovation by offering pharmaceutical companies rewards, they just disagree on what counts as innovation.
B
patents should be granted for all drug compounds
Dario agrees with this, but Cynthia disagrees: here’s the point of disagreement. This claim is Dario’s main conclusion. Cynthia’s conclusion, however, is that only certain drug compounds should get patents.
C
developing truly innovative drugs is costly
Both speakers agree that this is true. Dario talks about the “costly” research needed to develop any new drugs, and Cynthia says that varying existing drugs is “much less expensive” than innovative drugs (meaning innovation is much more expensive).
D
pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to create minor variants of existing drugs
Cynthia agrees with this, but Dario doesn’t express an opinion about minor variants specifically. Dario groups all sorts of new drugs together, and never distinguishes between minor variants and totally new drugs.
E
drug patents can promote innovation
Both speakers agree with this claim. Both Dario and Cynthia think that awarding patents can promote innovation, they just disagree about when precisely the decision to award patents should be made.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people who received extra change acted dishonestly. This is because most of them did not return the extra change they received.
Notable Assumptions
The author’s conclusion is based on the assumption that the customers knew they received extra change. If the customers were unaware they received the extra dollar, they did not act dishonestly by failing to return it.
A
Did those who received an extra dollar count their change?
If yes, the author’s conclusion is valid, as the customers knew they had received extra change and dishonestly kept it. If no, then the author’s conclusion is invalid, as the customers did not know they received the extra change and could not have kept it dishonestly.
B
What percentage of the retail transactions studied were cash transactions?
Irrelevant—the study’s sample is limited to customers who used cash for their transactions.
C
Would the people who returned the extra dollar describe themselves as honest?
Irrelevant—whether the customers self-describe as honest does not affect the author’s characterization of them as honest.
D
Did the people who returned the extra dollar suspect that it was given to them intentionally?
Irrelevant—the conclusion of the argument is about how most of the customers did not return the dollar and therefore behaved dishonestly. The author doesn’t make an explicit claim about those who returned the dollar, or their intentions in doing so.
E
Does increasing the extra change to five dollars have an effect on people’s behavior?
Irrelevant—the author’s conclusion is only about this particular study, in which customers were only given an extra dollar.
Summary
Researchers placed electrodes in a pool with a dolphin. When activated, the electrodes created a weak electric field, causing the dolphin to swim away. When they were not activated, the dolphin behaved normally. After covering the dolphin's vibrissal crypts with a plastic shield, the dolphin no longer swam away when the electrodes were activated.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The vibrissal crypts impact a dolphin’s ability to detect electric fields.
Dolphins instinctively swim from electrical fields
Dolphins instinctively swim from electrical fields
A
In the wild, dolphins sometimes encounter strong electric fields.
There is no information about this in the stimulus. You have to assume that because they have vibrissal crypts, there are strong electric fields in the wild.
B
Vibrissal crypts enable dolphins to sense electric fields.
The experiment showed that the dolphin no longer reacted to the electrical field when the vibrissal crypts were covered. It is reasonable assume that the crypts impact the dolphin’s ability to sense electric fields.
C
Dolphins do not instinctually avoid electric fields, but they can be trained to do so.
This is antisupported. The study showed how the dolphins instinctively avoided the electric fields when they were present.
D
Electric fields interfere with the normal functioning of dolphins’ vibrissal crypts.
This is antisupported. The plastic shields interfere with the normal functioning of vibrissal crypts. That’s why the dolphin no longer avoided the electrical field.
E
Under normal circumstances, dolphins are unable to sense electric fields.
This is antisupported. Dolphins are normally able to sense electric fields. It is only when their vibrissal crypts are covered that it no longer detected them.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that fairy circles are created by the burrowing activities of termites. This is based on the fact that sand termite colonires are found in every fairy circle that scientists have investigated.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for the formation of fairy circles. For example, maybe fairy circles are produced by animals who eat the grass in a circular fashion? Or by other kinds of animals that burrow underground?
A
Dying grass plants within newly forming fairy circles are damaged only at the roots.
This strengthens by eliminating the possibility that fairy circles are formed by above-ground animals eating the grass. If the dying plants are damaged only at the roots, the cause is likely something underground.
B
The grasses that grow around fairy circles are able to survive even the harshest and most prolonged droughts in the region.
But why would circular patches without grass form? (B) doesn’t help establish that the cause is likely underground. It also doesn’t eliminate drought as an explanation for the circles, because drought isn’t something that would have created circles in the first place.
C
The soil in fairy circles typically has higher water content than the soil in areas immediately outside the circles.
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for the formation of fairy circles — maybe it has something to do with the higher water content of the soil.
D
Fairy circles tend to form in areas that already have numerous other fairy circles.
This gives us information on where fairy circles tend to form. But this doesn’t suggest anything about the cause of fairy circles. Are they due to termites? Or something else?
E
Species of animals that feed on sand termites are often found living near fairy circles.
We already know from the premises that sand termites are found in every fairy circle investigated. We don’t need additional support for the presence of the termites near fairy circles. The issue is whether the termites that we know are there are the cause of fairy circles.
Extracurricular
Formation of Namibia’s fairy circles isn’t due to termites