Lecturer: If I say, “I tried to get my work done on time,” the meanings of my words do not indicate that I didn’t get it done on time. But usually you would correctly understand me to be saying that I didn’t. After all, if I had gotten my work done on time, I would instead just say, “I got my work done on time.” And this example is typical of how conversation works.

Summary

The lecturer gives us an example of a statement that, in a conversation, contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. The literal meaning of “I tried to get my work done on time” does not express that I didn’t get my work done on time. But if I made that statement, you’d be correct to understand me as asserting that I didn’t get my work done on time. This example is typical of other statements in a conversation.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

People say things that contain meanings beyond the literal meaning of the words.

A
Understanding what people say often requires more than just understanding the meanings of the words they use.

Strongly supported. We have an example of a statement that contains meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. This was typical of conversations. So, understanding the meaning of some other things people say requires more than just the meaning of the literal words.

B
It is unusual for English words to function in communication in the way that “tried” does.

Unsupported. The stimulus gave us an example of something that is typical (usual) in conversations. There’s no support for a claim about the function of certain words being unusual.

C
Understanding what people use a word to mean often requires detecting their nonverbal cues.

Unsupported. We don’t know that understanding the meaning of the example in the stimulus requires nonverbal cues. We might get the meaning from the context in which it’s made, or from the fact the person didn’t say something else.

D
Speakers often convey more information in conversation than they intend to convey.

Unsupported. The example in the stimulus concerns a speaker who intends to express more than what the literal words mean. It doesn’t concern someone who expressed more than he intended.

E
Listeners cannot reasonably be expected to have the knowledge typically required for successful communication.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t tell us anything about how likely people will interpret statements accurately. Maybe most people interpret statements in conversations accurately; there’s no evidence either for or against this possibility.


8 comments

Rita: No matter how you look at them, your survey results are misleading. Since people generally lie on such surveys, the numbers you collected are serious underestimates.

Hiro: I have no doubt that people lie on surveys of this type. The question is whether some people lie more than others. While the raw numbers surely underestimate what I’m trying to measure, the relative rates those numbers represent are probably close to being accurate.

Speaker 1 Summary
Now matter how you look at them, your survey results are misleading. Why? Because the numbers collected are serious underestimates, since people generally lie on surveys.

Speaker 2 Summary
The rates these numbers represent are probably close to being accurate. Despite the raw numbers surely being an underestimate, the question is whether some people lie more than others.

Objective
We need a statement Rita and Hiro disagree on. They disagree whether Hiro’s survey results are misleading. Rita thinks the results are misleading because the raw numbers are underestimates. Hiro does not think they are misleading because the rates that the raw numbers represent are probably close to accurate.

A
the survey results are misleading regardless of how they are interpreted
Rita and Hiro disagree on this statement. Rita agrees because she states the results are misleading no matter how you examine them. Hiro disagrees because when you examine the rates instead of the raw numbers, the results are close to accurate.
B
people tend to lie on certain kinds of surveys
Both speakers agree on this statement. Rita claims that the survey results are misleading because people lie on surveys. Hiro concedes this point.
C
a different type of measure than a survey would produce results that are less misleading
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Both speaker’s comments are limited to the results of Hiro’s survey specifically.
D
the raw numbers collected are serious underestimates
Both speakers agree on this statement. Rita claims that the survey results are misleading because the raw numbers are serious underestimates. Hiro concedes this point, but suggests to look at the rates instead of the raw numbers.
E
the number of people surveyed was adequate for the survey’s purpose
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. The raw number from the story could be misleading for reasons other than the total number of people surveyed.

12 comments

Researchers examined 100 people suffering from herniated disks in their backs. Five of them were found to have a defect in a particular gene. The researchers also examined 100 people who had no problems with the disks in their backs; none had the genetic defect. They concluded that the genetic defect increases the likelihood of herniated disks.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The researchers hypothesize a person with the genetic defect is more likely to have a herniated disk. Why? Because 5 of 100 people with herniated disks had the defect, while 0 of 100 people without herniated disks had the defect.

Notable Assumptions
The researchers assume the correlation they found is explained by a causal relationship—that the genetic defect causes an increased likelihood of suffering a herniated disk. This means assuming no other causal relationship explains the phenomenon. It also means assuming their samples were representative of the general population.

A
The researchers also examined a group of 100 people who did not have the defective gene; 80 were found to have herniated disks in their backs.
If anything, this weakens the researchers’ argument. It suggests lacking the genetic defect—rather than having it—makes suffering a herniated disk more likely.
B
When the researchers examined a group of 100 people with the defective gene, they found that 2 of them had herniated disks in their backs.
If anything, this weakens the researchers’ argument. It implies having the genetic defect doesn’t make the likelihood of suffering a herniated disk all that high.
C
When the researchers examined the families of the 5 subjects who had the defective gene, they found that 30 family members also had the defective gene, and each of them suffered from herniated disks.
This implies a stronger correlation between the genetic defect and herniated disks. It’s more evidence that people with the defective gene tend to suffer herniated disks.
D
Another team of researchers examined a different group of 100 people who suffered from herniated disks, and they found that none of them had the defective gene.
This weakens the researchers’ argument. It suggests the findings were not replicable, raising the possibility the researchers’ study was anomalous or poorly designed.
E
When the researchers examined the family of one of the subjects who did not suffer from herniated disks, they found 30 family members who did not have the defective gene, and 20 of them suffered from herniated disks.
This weakens the researchers’ argument. It implies a different genetic or behavioral factor, other than the genetic defect in question, is likely responsible for the increased likelihood of herniated disks.

10 comments