Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that some people have unusual distinctions between their five senses. Why? Because some people reacting to a stimulus in one sense claim to have an experience in a different sense, contrary to the way senses are traditionally understood.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the people studied are telling the truth about their sense experiences and have the capability to accurately represent them. He further assumes their sense experiences are unusual in the sense that most people are not synesthesiacs.
A
Synesthesiacs demonstrate a general, systematic impairment in their ability to use and understand words.
This suggests some people studied failed to report their experiences accurately. If synesthesiacs struggle to use words, they may have normal sense experiences but simply describe them in an unusual way.
B
Recent evidence strongly suggests that there are other senses besides sight, touch, smell, hearing, and taste.
The author does not assume there are only five senses. The existence of other senses does not explain why some people apparently confound stimuli between the five traditional senses.
C
The particular ways in which sensory experiences overlap in synesthesiacs follow a definite pattern.
This is not grounds for denying that those experiences are unusual. The group of all synesthesiacs can have sense experiences that are internally consistent but still very different from those of the general population.
D
The synesthetic phenomenon has been described in the legends of various cultures.
This does not imply that synesthesiacs are misrepresenting their experiences or that their experiences are typical. It’s possible synesthetic experiences are unusual in those cultures as well.
E
Synesthesiacs can be temporarily rid of their synesthetic experiences by the use of drugs.
This suggests a remedy for those experiences—it doesn’t imply they don’t exist. Synesthetic experiences are not made typical simply because using drugs can make them go away temporarily.
Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. As the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the conservationist’s claim that the wildlife refuge poses no safety risk, the pilot counters by pointing out 17 of the 20 collisions that occurred in the 10 years since the refuge was established happened within the last 2 years. Moreover, the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. The more collisions between birds and airplanes, the greater likelihood at least one collision will result in passenger injuries.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The pilot counters the position held by the conservationist. She does this by showing that the conservationist’s statements about the number of collisions between birds and planes is misleading. 20 total collisions spread out over 10 years implies a lower risk compared to 17 collisions in only 2 years. Therefore, it can’t be true that the refuge poses absolutely no safety risk.
A
attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the facts is misleading
The pilot shows the conservationist’s description is misleading by pointing out the distribution of collisions over the 10 year period. 20 collisions spread out over 10 years illustrates a different picture compared to 17 collisions in just 2 years.
B
questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion
The pilot does not address the conservationist’s motives. The pilot addresses the conservationist’s argument directly.
C
asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time
The pilot does not state a general principle about dangerous situations becoming more dangerous over time. The pilot addresses only one specific dangerous situation: the collisions between planes and birds from the wildlife refuge.
D
discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based
The conservationist does not state a moral principle as the basis of his argument.
E
disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist
The pilot does not deny the accuracy of the conservationist’s evidence. Rather, the pilot shows that the evidence as described by the conservationist is misleading.
Summary
We’re learning a fact about a very specific group of people. The group is… newborn babies of four to six weeks, whose mothers are their primary caretakers, and who are crying due to hunger or a similar discomfort. Got all that? Great! Well, for those guys, the sound of their mother’s voice makes them stop crying temporarily. Other people’s voices do not do this.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
This stimulus supports the following conclusions:
Babies aged four to six weeks can at least sometimes distinguish their primary caretaker’s voice from other voices.
Babies aged four to six weeks who are in discomfort can at least sometimes be soothed by their primary caretaker’s voice.
The sound of their primary caretaker’s voice may lead babies aged four to six weeks who are in discomfort to anticipate relief.
Babies aged four to six weeks can at least sometimes distinguish their primary caretaker’s voice from other voices.
Babies aged four to six weeks who are in discomfort can at least sometimes be soothed by their primary caretaker’s voice.
The sound of their primary caretaker’s voice may lead babies aged four to six weeks who are in discomfort to anticipate relief.
A
Babies more easily learn to recognize the voices of their mothers than the voices of other people.
This is not supported. The stimulus only talks about babies whose primary caretakers are their mothers, and only mentions voice recognition in a limited context. We just can’t compare babies’ recognition of their mothers’ voices with other voices based on these facts.
B
A mother’s voice is the first thing a baby learns to recognize.
This is not supported. The facts we are given don’t suggest when babies learn to recognize different things. We just know that babies can sometimes recognize their mothers’ voices by four to six weeks old, not what might come before or after.
C
Babies associate the voice of the primary caregiver with release from discomfort.
This is strongly supported. These babies clearly have some positive association with their primary caretakers’ voices—why else would they stop crying? It’s reasonable to infer an association with release from discomfort, especially given that they’re crying from discomfort.
D
Often only a primary caregiver can provide comfort to a newborn.
This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t offer any broad facts about who can comfort a newborn and when. All we know is that, for a very specific subset of babies, their primary caregiver’s voice can lead them to pause their crying. Does that even count as comfort? Who knows!
E
Discomfort in newborns is best relieved by hearing the mother’s voice.
This is not supported. First, we can’t assume that the newborns are actually relieved of their discomfort. They stop crying temporarily, but may well keep feeling bad. Second, there’s nothing to compare with if we want to call a mother’s voice the “best” option.