John: I think you are wrong to use that criterion. A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter; however, a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply.
Speaker 1 Summary
Muriel concludes that Favilla isn’t a great writer. This is because Favilla’s subject matter isn’t varied enough.
Speaker 2 Summary
John asserts that having varied subject matter isn’t a requirement for being a great writer. He proposes a different requirement - the ability to explore a particular theme deeply. John’s implicit point is that we can’t conclude that Favilla is not a great writer even if her subject matter isn’t varied.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether great writers must write about subject matter with enough variety.
A
whether Favilla has treated a wide variety of subjects in her novels
John doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t say anything about Favilla’s writing.
B
whether Favilla should be considered a great writer because her style is distinctive
If John has an opinion, it agrees with Muriel. Since he thinks exploring a theme deeply is a requirement to be great, no writers, including Favilla, are great simply because they have a distinctive style. Muriel also believes Favilla is not great even if she has a distinctive style.
C
whether treating a variety of subjects should be a prerequisite for someone to be considered a great writer
This is a point of disagreement. Muriel thinks Favilla isn’t great because she doesn’t have subject matter that’s varied enough. John thinks variety of subject matter is not necessary to be great.
D
whether the number of novels that a novelist has written should be a factor in judging whether that novelist is great
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Nobody mentions the number of novels a novelist has written and whether this is a factor assessing a novelist’s greatness.
E
whether there are many novelists who are considered to be great but do not deserve to be so considered
Neither express an opinion about this. Muriel does say that Favilla doesn’t deserve to be considered great, but she doesn’t say that Favilla is currently considered great.
A
It draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion.
The advertisement commits this error. On the basis of a select group of people who own Sturdimades that have lasted long, the advertisement draws a general conclusion that Sturdimades can be relied upon to drive for long distances.
B
Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it.
This is the cookie-cutter “circular reasoning” flaw, where an argument cites its conclusion as evidence that its conclusion is true. The advertisement doesn’t commit this flaw.
C
It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises.
The “long distance” club is for Sturdimade owners who’ve driven Sturdimades for over 100,000 miles. When “long distance” is used in the conclusion, it’s understood that it’s referring to the number of miles a Sturdimade lasts, just as “long distance” was used earlier in the ad.
D
The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion.
None of the advertisement’s premises go against what’s stated in the conclusion.
E
It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim.
The advertisement doesn’t cite popular opinion as proof that Sturdimades can be relied upon to drive for long distances. The advertisement cites hundreds of owners who have Sturdimades that have lasted for a high number of miles.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do Naota women employed full-time earn a higher proportion of what their male counterparts earn than do employed Naota women in general?
Objective
Any hypothesis explaining this discrepancy must identify a difference between the collection of people employed in Naota and the collection of people employed full-time in Naota. This distinction must explain a smaller difference between the average earnings of women employed full-time and those of men employed full-time than the difference between the average earnings of employed women in general and those of employed men in general.
A
In Naota, the difference between the average annual earnings of all female workers and the average annual earnings of all male workers has been gradually increasing over the past 30 years.
This fails to distinguish between full-time workers and workers in general. It gives context for the large earning discrepancy between male and female workers in general, but gives no reason for the discrepancy between male and female full-time workers to be smaller.
B
In Naota, the average annual earnings of women who work full time in exactly the same occupations and under exactly the same conditions as men is almost the same as the men’s average annual earnings.
This identifies a subset of full-time workers with no earning discrepancy, but draws no contrast between full-time workers and Naota workers in general.
C
In Naota, a growing proportion of female workers hold full-time managerial, supervisory, or professional positions, and such positions typically pay more than other types of positions pay.
This introduces an irrelevant temporal dynamic. It does not indicate that the proportion of female managerial workers is large, only that it is growing, and it admits the possibility that more women are holding supervisory and professional positions on a part-time basis as well.
D
In Naota, a larger proportion of female workers than male workers are part-time workers, and part-time workers typically earn less than full-time workers earn.
This explains the discrepancy. Women are more likely to work lower-paying part-time jobs than men, so women earn a lower proportion of what men earn, on average, than the full-time numbers alone indicate.
E
In ten other countries where the proportion of women in the work force is similar to that of Naota, the average annual earnings of women who work full time ranges from a low of 50 percent to a high of 90 percent of the average annual earnings of men who work full time.
This introduces irrelevant information about other countries. It draws no distinction between the collection of all Naota’s workers and the collection of its full-time workers.