Summarize Argument
The author concludes that that there’s reason to think that medieval peasants were not deeply dedicated to religion. This is because the recordkeepers who recorded the religious devotion of peasants were members of the clergy, who we would expect to exaggerate peasants’ level of religious dedication.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the recordkeepers actually exaggerated peasants’ level of religious dedication. (This overlooks the possibility that, even though we might expect them to have a motive to exaggerate dedication, they did not in fact exaggerate in their records.)
A
Among the written records produced by clergy in medieval Europe and currently available to historians are a number of documents detailing nonreligious, as well as religious, activities of peasants.
The author never assumed that clergy only recorded religious activities of peasants. The assumption is that the level of religious dedication was exaggerated; but this allows for plenty of records related to nonreligious things.
B
Many members of the clergy in medieval Europe spent more time among peasants than among people of any other social class.
This has no clear impact. We don’t know how the amount of time spent among peasants relates to the possibility that clergy exaggerated the level of peasants’ religious dedication.
C
Written records produced by clergy in medieval Europe very rarely portray merchants or nobles as being dedicated to religion.
This undermines the assumption that the clergy exaggerated peasants’ religious dedication. We would expect clergy to exaggerate other peoples’ dedication, too. But if they didn’t exaggerate for merchants/nobles, that suggests they might not have exaggerated for peasants, too.
D
Historians cannot develop a reliable account of the religious attitudes held during any given historical period unless they have consulted all of the relevant surviving records from that period.
This has no clear impact. We don’t know whether historians have consulted all relevant surviving records. Also, even if historians can’t develop a reliable account, that’s consistent with the author’s position that we have reason to doubt the prevailing view.
E
Documents produced by clergy in medieval Europe contain detailed descriptions of participation by peasants and others in religious activities.
The author already recognizes this possibility. His position is that these descriptions are likely to be exaggerations.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the climate in this area is not wet. This is based on the following:
Abundant population of gnats → geckos found
Gnats → wet climate
There are no geckos in this area.
There isn’t an abundant population of gnats in this area.
Abundant population of gnats → geckos found
Gnats → wet climate
There are no geckos in this area.
There isn’t an abundant population of gnats in this area.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions in this statement: “Gnats can survive only in wet climates.” This establishes that having gnats present is sufficient to know that the climate is wet. But the author mistakenly believes that this implies the absence of an abundance of gnats proves that the climate is not wet. This overlooks the possibility that a climate can be wet even if there are aren’t many gnats present.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that gecko lizards can survive only in environments with abundant gnat populations
The author does not assume gnats are necessary for geckos. Rather, the author correctly uses the premise that asserts the presence of geckos is necessary for abundance of gnats. We know there are no geckos in the area, so that proves there isn’t an abundance of gnats.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that all wet environments contain abundant populations of gnats
The author assumes that if the climate in an area is wet, there will be an abundance of gnats. This is why the author believes the lack of abundance of gnats implies that a climate is not wet. This is flawed, because no premise tells us all wet climate areas have lots of gnats.
C
does not consider whether small populations of gnats can survive in climates that are not wet
A premise establishes that gnats can survive only in wet climates. So if an area is not wet, gnats cannot survive there.
D
does not mention whether gecko lizards eat anything besides gnats
The author didn’t need to mentions whether geckos eat other things. In fact, it’s not even clear whether geckos eat gnats. What’s in a geckos diet doesn’t affect the logic of the argument.
E
fails to establish that some gecko lizards could not survive in a dry climate containing only a small population of gnats
We already have a premise asserting that there are no geckos living in the area. So the author doesn’t need to establish that it’s impossible for geckos to live in certain areas. We already know geckos don’t live in this area, and the argument is about this area.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the fact people can distinguish between sour/bitter/sweet/salty is completely explained by the use of taste to test the healthfulness of foods. This is based on the fact that early humans used taste buds to test foods for healthfulness.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that there’s no other additional explanation for why humans can distinguish between sour/bitter/sweet/salty. The premises establish that testing for healthfulness is one of the reasons for this ability, but that doesn’t guarantee there aren’t additional reasons.
A
takes a necessary condition for the truth of its conclusion to be sufficient to justify that conclusion
The argument doesn’t present any necessary conditions for the truth of the conclusion. The premises tell us specific ways in which taste can help humans stay healthy, but these specific ways aren’t necessary for the conclusion to be true.
B
fails to consider that many people associate foods more with their smells than with their tastes
This possibility doesn’t affect the argument. Whether people “associate” foods more with smells doesn’t reveal anything about the purpose of the ability to distinguish different tastes.
C
fails to consider that some nutritious foods are bitter when raw but not after being cooked
This possibility doesn’t weaken the argument. Foods might change taste after being cooked, and that might reveal something about the healthfulness of the food after being cooked.
D
fails to consider that most early humans ate a much more limited range of foodstuffs than do contemporary people
The argument doesn’t make any assumptions about the range of foods eaten by humans. The argument is simply about the purpose of distinguishing tastes. We know early humans could distinguish between certain tastes; the range of their diet doesn’t affect this.
E
takes what might be only a partial explanation of a phenomenon to be the complete explanation
Taste helping to detect healthfulness of foods is a partial explanation of human’s ability to distinguish tastes. But the author assumes it’s a complete explanation. This overlooks the possibility there could be other reasons humans can distinguish tastes.