Sociologist: Some people argue that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism. Critics of such a view argue that more people were executed for theft in preindustrial England than were executed in England after industrialization. But such a criticism overlooks the fact that industrialization and capitalism are two very different social phenomena, and that the latter predated the former by several centuries.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The sociologist disagrees with critics who use pre- and post-industrialization statistics to argue against a claim about capital punishment and British capitalism. To show why the critics’ argument is poor, the sociologist explains that capitalism and industrialization are distinct, and didn’t even begin at the same time. This establishes that the critics’ criticism (about industrialization) is missing the point of the original claim (about capitalism).
Identify Argument Part
The claim that capitalism and industrialization are distinct is used as a rebuttal to the critics discussed in the argument.
A
It is cited as some evidence against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.
The author never provides evidence either for or against the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Arguing against critics is not the same as supporting the claim they criticize.
B
It is cited as a direct contradiction of the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.
The author never contradicts the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Specifically, a distinction between industrialization and capitalism does’t contradict that claim.
C
It is an attempt to conclusively prove the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.
The author never attempts to prove the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. The point is to argue against the critics, not to prove the original claim.
D
It is cited as a fact supporting the critics of the view that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.
The author’s whole goal is to refute the critics. Nothing in the argument supports the critics, and the distinction between industrialization and capitalism specifically rebuts them.
E
It is an attempt to undermine the criticism cited against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.
This is a good description of the role played by the distinction between industrialization and capitalism. The author uses the distinction to show that the critics missed the point of the claim they criticize, thus undermining them.
Professor Wigmore: Advertisements might or might not be true literary works but they do have a powerfully detrimental effect on society—largely because people cannot discern their real messages. The literature department’s courses give students the critical skills to analyze and understand texts. Therefore, it is the literature department’s responsibility to include the study of advertisements in its undergraduate courses.
Summarize Argument
Professor Wigmore concludes the literature department is responsible for covering advertisements in its undergraduate courses. Why? Because those courses give students skills to understand texts, and society is negatively affected by people’s inability to understand the real messages of advertisements.
Notable Assumptions
Professor Wigmore assumes the department has the ability and obligation to reduce the harm caused to society by advertising. She assumes covering advertisements in literature courses would allow enough people to understand the real messages of advertisements that it would reduce the amount by which advertisements harm society. In addition, she assumes literature courses will be more effective at helping students understand advertisements if they cover advertisements directly.
A
Advertisements ought to be framed in such a way that their real messages are immediately clear.
This normative judgment doesn’t affect Professor Wigmore’s argument. She does not refer to the way advertisements would ideally be framed.
B
Any text that is subtly constructed and capable of affecting people’s thought and action ought to be considered a form of literature.
This supports calling advertisements literature—but that’s not Professor Wigmore’s point. She argues advertisements should be covered in literature courses, whether they count as literature or not.
C
All undergraduate students ought to take at least one course that focuses on the development of critical skills.
This doesn’t support the argument. Undergraduate literature courses help students develop critical skills in understanding texts, whether or not they cover advertisements, according to Professor Wigmore.
D
The literature department’s courses ought to enable students to analyze and understand any text that could have a harmful effect on society.
This makes concrete a key assumption by Professor Wigmore: that the department has an obligation to reduce the harmful effect on society created by people’s inability to understand advertisements.
E
Any professor teaching an undergraduate course in the literature department ought to be free to choose the material to be covered in that course.
This doesn’t affect Professor Wigmore’s argument. She concludes that undergraduate literature courses should cover advertisements, not that professors should be forced to cover advertisements even if they don’t want to.
Summarize Argument
The editorialist tells us that radical environmentalist extremists can play a positive role, even though they often make false claims and suggest impractical solutions. So what’s positive about that? As the editorialist says, people are only willing to address environmental issues if they fear disaster, even if their fears are based on misinformation. This implies that the radical environmentalists can help motivate people towards change by creating fear, thus playing a positive role.
Identify Conclusion
The editorialist’s conclusion is the concession that “there is a positive role to be played” by radical environmentalists.
A
The little progress that has been made in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists.
The argument doesn’t discuss all the factors that lead to environmental progress, and definitely doesn’t say that fear created by radical environmentalists is the most important factor.
B
Radical environmentalists, by promoting their views, stimulate progress on environmental issues.
This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The editorialist’s argument is designed to suggest that the extremists, by spreading fear, can motivate environmentally-friendly change.
C
Social and political inertia is most effectively overcome by an extremely fearful populace, regardless of whether its fears are well-founded.
This is much broader than anything the editorialist claims. The argument is specifically talking about inertia on environmental issues, and not inertia in general. Also, the argument’s actual claim about inertia is a premise, not the main conclusion.
D
Radical environmentalists often put forth untenable positions in order to produce the fear that is required to bring about moderate reforms.
The editorialist doesn’t tell us anything about the motivations or intentions of the radical environmentalists, so we simply don’t know if this is true.
E
Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility.
The editorialist never claims that radical environmentalists totally ignore facts and practicality, even if they sometimes make false claims or make unfeasible proposals. This goes beyond what the argument actually says.
Summary
People should avoid taking calcium carbonate in doses larger than half a gram. Why? Because, despite its ability to neutralize stomach acids, it can increase the calcium level in the blood and therefore impair kidney function. Just half a gram of calcium carbonate could stimulate the production of gastrin, which causes acid secretion.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Half a gram of calcium carbonate could cause both acid neutralization and acid secretion.
A
Cessation of gastrin production is a more effective method of controlling excess stomach acid than is direct neutralization of stomach acid.
We don’t know whether stopping gastrin production is a more effective way to control excess stomach acid. We only know that gastrin is a cause of acid secretion.
B
People who avoid taking more than half a gram of calcium carbonate are less likely than average to suffer from impaired kidney function.
We don’t know the average likelihood of suffering from impaired kidney function.
C
Doses of calcium carbonate smaller than half a gram can reduce stomach acid more effectively than much larger doses do.
We don’t know whether smaller does of calcium carbonate are more effective than larger doses for reducing stomach acid.
D
Half a gram of calcium carbonate can causally contribute to both the secretion and the neutralization of stomach acids.
We know that calcium carbonate has the capacity to neutralize stomach acid, but we also know that half a gram of calcium carbonate has the potential to cause acid secretion through the production of gastrin.
E
Impaired kidney function may increase the level of calcium in the blood.
We don’t know whether impaired kidney function increases the level of calcium in the blood. Rather, we know that increased levels of calcium in the blood could cause impaired kidney function.
Summarize Argument
The author claims that any differences in the lens resolutions of modern cameras are “irrelevant” for practical purposes. This is supported by the statement that all modern lenses have a high enough resolution that photographic film cannot capture all the detail projected by the lens. This means that a higher-resolution lens will not lead to more detailed images on the film.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s belief that differences in the lens resolution of modern cameras are “irrelevant for practical photography.”
A
Camera manufacturers ought to concentrate on building other desirable qualities into their cameras’ lenses, rather than concentrating only on the lenses’ resolution.
The argument does not include any recommendations or statements about what anyone “ought” to do.
B
Apart from differences in resolution, there is no practical difference among modern cameras in the quality of the images that they produce.
The author never says this. The argument focuses only on lens resolution, and doesn’t offer any information about the other differences that might exist between cameras.
C
Advertised differences among cameras in the resolution of their lenses have no practical bearing on the cameras’ relative quality as photographic tools.
This accurately describes the argument’s conclusion. The author’s claim about the effects of lens resolution on the images captured on film supports the statement that lens resolution, which advertisers focus on, makes no practical difference.
D
In concentrating their advertising on the issue of image quality, manufacturers are making a mistake about the interests of potential purchasers of cameras.
The argument does not make any value judgments or claim that advertisers are mistaken in any way. It also doesn’t contain any information about consumers’ interests.
E
Differences among photographic films in the amount of detail they reproduce have a more significant effect on the quality of the developed image than do differences in the resolution of camera lenses.
The author never tells us anything about photographic film, other than its relationship with lens resolution. We don’t know anything about how film impacts image quality, and certainly can’t say if it’s more or less important than the lens.