Garza: But the Upper Paleolithic is exceptional for the intensive use of bone, which typically survives well in archaeological contexts, unlike other materials commonly used for musical instruments, such as wood.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Garza disputes Patterson’s conclusion that music likely first arose in the Upper Paleolithic era. Patterson’s reasoning is that bone flutes from this period are the earliest evidence of music. In response, Garza points out that bone, which preserves well, is unusually prevalent in Upper Paleolithic artifacts. Earlier instruments made from less durable materials, like wood, would be less likely to survive.
She implies that music could have existed earlier, but, if so, evidence of it wouldn’t survive due to the perishable nature of the materials used. Thus, even though there are no surviving earlier musical artifacts, there could have been earlier music.
She implies that music could have existed earlier, but, if so, evidence of it wouldn’t survive due to the perishable nature of the materials used. Thus, even though there are no surviving earlier musical artifacts, there could have been earlier music.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Garza argues that Patterson lacks enough evidence to reach his conclusion. Patterson relies on the set of all currently discovered ancient tools. But Garza says that, because some ancient tools may not have survived to the present, this sample isn’t definitive enough to support his conclusion.
Note that she isn’t saying that Patterson’s conclusion has to be false. It could be true, but he doesn’t have enough evidence to support it.
Note that she isn’t saying that Patterson’s conclusion has to be false. It could be true, but he doesn’t have enough evidence to support it.
A
arguing that the body of evidence to which Patterson appeals is insufficient for Patterson’s purposes
To reach his conclusion, Patterson relies on the set of all discovered ancient tools, which Garza argues is insufficient. She contends that pre-Upper Paleolithic musical instruments made out of non-bone materials might not have survived long enough to be discovered.
B
offering evidence to challenge the truth of the premise of Patterson’s argument
Garza doesn’t challenge the truth of Patterson’s premise (bone flutes are the earliest discovered musical instruments). She challenges its significance: even if true, it isn’t sufficient to reach his conclusion.
C
presenting a counterexample to the general conclusion drawn in Patterson’s argument
Garza presents hypothetical reasons to doubt Patterson’s conclusion, not a specific counterexample. A counterexample would be e.g. an actual pre-paleolithic wooden flute.
D
presenting an argument analogous to Patterson’s argument to reveal a potential flaw in Patterson’s reasoning
Garza provides direct reason to doubt Patterson’s reasoning; she doesn’t use an analogy.
E
using Patterson’s evidence to draw a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion drawn in Patterson’s argument
Garza’s reasoning isn’t based on Patterson’s evidence (Upper Paleolithic bone flutes). It’s based on new considerations (the perishability of non-bone materials) not present in Patterson’s argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Thompson is the best person to lead the nation out of the candidates running. This is based on the fact that Thompson is the only candidate who opposes higher taxes, whereas the others support them. And, many people agree that those who oppose higher taxes are better leaders than those who support them.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because many people believe something, it’s actually true. This overlooks the possibility that, even though many people think one who opposes higher taxes makes for a better leader than one who supports them, these people are just wrong. Opposition to higher taxes might not make one a better leader than one who supports them.
A
Opposing higher taxes is not a factor contributing to good leadership.
This directly undermines the assumption that what “many people agree” about is correct. If opposition to higher taxes doesn’t contribute to good leadership, then it’s not a relevant to a determination of which candidate would make for a better leader than another candidate.
B
Being opposed to higher taxes is not a sufficient condition for good leadership.
The author never assumed that opposition is enough to guarantee good leadership; only that opposition to higher taxes makes one a better leader than those who support higher taxes. Even if opposition isn’t sufficient, it can still be a factor increasing one’s quality as a leader.
C
Thompson has questionable opinions concerning important issues other than taxes.
The author cites to what many people agree about as support for a rule that those who oppose higher taxes are better leaders than those who support them. So, other factors relating to other issues don’t affect the reasoning used by the author.
D
All of the past leaders who supported higher taxes performed their jobs adequately.
The author concludes that Thompson is the best person to lead out of the remaining candidates. This is a relative claim. Even if people who support higher taxes can perform adequately, the author can still prove that Thompson will be better.
E
All of the past leaders who supported higher taxes were hardworking.
The author cites to what many people agree about as support for a rule that those who oppose higher taxes are better leaders than those who support them. Other qualities of the candidates, such as potentially being hardworking, are not relevant to application of this rule.
Sarah: Watching a drama whose characters are violent allows the audience to vicariously experience the emotions associated with aggression and thus be purged of them. Hence, the access by mature audiences to such forms of entertainment should not be restricted.
Speaker 1 Summary
Liang concludes that children’s access to certain violent movies should be restricted. This is because movies that treat violence as an appropriate way to resolve problems causes increased aggression in viewers.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sarah concludes that access to dramas involving violence should not be restricted for mature audiences. This is because such dramas allow viewers to experience the emotions associated with aggression and to get rid of those emotions.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that watching movie violence can have an effect on viewers. They don’t speak about the exact same effects, but they agree that there can be effects.
A
people who experience an emotion vicariously are likely to purge themselves of that emotion
Liang doesn’t express an opinion. She doesn’t say anything about vicarious experience of emotion and the results of such experience.
B
the members of a mature audience are unlikely to believe that violence is sometimes an appropriate way to resolve problems
Neither expresses an opinion. Liang doesn’t say anything about mature adults, and Sarah doesn’t say anything about violence as an appropriate way to resolve problems.
C
if violence in certain movies causes violence in viewers, access to those movies should be restricted
Sarah expresses no opinion. She doesn’t say anything suggesting an opinion about what should happen if movies cause violence in viewers.
D
the effects of dramatic depictions of violence on audiences are at least partially understood
This is a point of agreement. Each speaker makes a different comment about effects of watching violent depictions, but each believes we understand some effects. L believes one effect is increasing levels of aggression. S believes one effect is allowing purging of aggression.
E
children are more likely than adults to be attracted to dramas involving characters who behave violently
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Liang’s recommendation concerns children, but that doesn’t mean she has any thoughts on whether children are more attracted to violent dramas than adults are.