Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the regulation banning PCBs was effective in reducing human exposure to those chemicals. This is based on a study that measured the levels of toxic chemicals in the bodies of 11 volunteers. Although scientifically valid inferences can’t be drawn from the study, the author states that the study showed that younger people showed much lower levels of PCBs than older people. PCBs were banned in the 1970s.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Despite acknowledging that we can’t draw scientifically valid inferences from the study due to its small sample size, the author proceeds to draw a conclusion based on that study. The author contradicts himself.
A
takes an inconsistent stance regarding the status of the inferences that can be drawn from the study
The author’s stance regarding whether we can draw valid inferences from the study is inconsistent. The author first says we can’t. But the author then tries to draw a conclusion.
B
overlooks the possibility that two or more chemicals produce the same effects
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because the reasoning doesn’t involve the effects of chemicals. The argument is based on a study that shows younger people in the study had lower levels of PCBs. The effects of PCBs, however, are not at issue.
C
concludes that a generalization has been proven true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false
The author doesn’t reach the conclusion on the basis of a claim that nobody has proven that the regulation banning PCBs wasn’t effective. The conclusion is based on a study.
D
takes something to be the cause of a reduction when it could have been an effect of that reduction
It doesn’t make sense to think that a reduction in PCBs could cause the regulations banning PCBs. Not every cause and effect relationship can be reversed.
E
does not consider the possibility that PCBs have detrimental effects on human health several years after exposure
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because the reasoning doesn’t involve the effects of chemicals. The argument is based on a study that shows younger people in the study had lower levels of PCBs. The effects of PCBs, however, are not at issue.
Carl: But such modernizing prevents students from understanding fully what the plays said to premodern audiences. Thus, modernizing plays is of no use for teaching history, because students cannot gain deep knowledge of the past from modernized plays.
Speaker 1 Summary
Lyle thinks that modernized plays are a useful way to teach history, albeit an imperfect one. To explain why modernized plays are useful, Lyle says that modernization makes the plays accessible to students who would otherwise not enjoy the play at all.
Speaker 2 Summary
Carl argues that modernized plays are useless to teach history. To explain why, Carl says that modernizing plays prevents students from completely understanding the plays’ original meanings. This then prevents the students from gaining deep knowledge of the past. (Carl is assuming that not providing deep knowledge of the past makes something useless for teaching history.)
Objective
We need to find a disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether modernized plays are useful for teaching history.
A
whether modernizing the language of premodern plays results in plays that have different pedagogical value than the originals
Carl agrees with this, and most likely, so does Lyle. Carl’s conclusion is that modernized plays are pedagogically worse than the originals, which is a difference. Lyle acknowledges that modernized plays are aesthetically poorer, which likely means a different pedagogical value.
B
whether the loss in aesthetic quality that results from modernizing the language of premodern plays lessens the plays’ usefulness for teaching history
Carl agrees that modernized plays are less useful to teach history, but never specifies that it’s because of a loss of aesthetic quality. Lyle never compares the usefulness of modernized and original plays at all, just says that the latter are still useful.
C
whether the highest form of aesthetic enjoyment of premodern plays comes from seeing them as they were originally performed
Neither speaker makes this claim. Neither Lyle nor Carl discusses how one can get the most enjoyment of premodern plays, nor do they talk about seeing the plays performed versus reading them.
D
whether increasing the accessibility of premodern plays through modernizing their language is valuable for teaching history
Lyle thinks that this is true but Carl thinks that it’s false; this is the disagreement. Lyle says that modernized plays are useful because they’re more accessible. Carl argues that modernized plays are useless for teaching because they don’t give deep knowledge of the past.
E
whether using plays with modernized language to teach history requires that there be some loss in the aesthetic quality of the plays
Lyle agrees with this, but Carl doesn’t state an opinion. Carl doesn’t talk about aesthetic quality at all, instead giving different reasons why modernized plays are a poor tool for teaching history.