Summary
Reproduction for all species of higher animals requires the production of eggs, but not necessarily sperm. There are some species whose members are all female; the eggs produced by a rare famale-only salamander species hatch without fertilization. This has the drawback that all offspring have genetic codes nearly identical to that of the single parent, causing the species to be less adaptive than species with both male and female members.
Notable Valid Inferences
Some species of higher animals do not produce eggs.
A
There are some species of salamanders that have both male and female members.
Could be true. We know that a rare female-only species of salamander exists, but there could also be other species of salamander with both male and female members.
B
There are some species of higher animals none of whose members produce eggs.
Must be false. The first sentence tells us that reproduction for all higher animals requires the production of eggs.
C
There is a significant number of female-only species of higher animals.
Could be true. We know that a rare female-only species of salamander exists. It could be the case that there are many other female-only species.
D
Some species of higher animals containing both female and male members are not very adaptive.
Could be true. We know that female-only species are less adaptive than species with both male and female members, but this does not preclude the possibility of a species with both males and females that is also not very adaptive.
E
Some offspring of species of higher animals containing both female and male members have genetic codes more similar to one parent than to the other parent.
Could be true. We know that for female-only species offspring have genetic codes identical to the single parent. It is possible that some offspring of species with both males and females have genetic codes more similar to one parent.
Summarize Argument
TV executives argue that advertising will be no harder to sell next fall than last fall. This is because, despite the increase in price per advertisement, advertisers will still profit from TV advertising.
Notable Assumptions
The TV executives assume that the cost of running advertisements won’t also increase. Assuming advertisers are operating on the margins, even a minor uptick in expenses combined with the 10-15% increase would make advertising unprofitable. Alternately, the TV executives may assume that the 10-15% increase is counterbalanced by something else (i.e. increasing viewership).
A
Most costs of production and distribution of products typically advertised on television are expected to rise 3 to 7 percent in the next year.
This weakens the TV executives’ argument. Everything’s getting more expensive, so advertising might be one place to cut costs.
B
The system for rating the size of the audience watching any given television advertisement will change next fall.
No matter how the audience is “rated,” the audience will nevertheless be comprised of the same number of people. We care to know if that audience is growing, but this doesn’t tell us anything about that.
C
Next fall advertising time on television will no longer be available in blocks smaller than 30 seconds.
This says that in all likelihood, some advertisers must commit to longer advertisements than they’ve previously ran. This would make advertising more difficult to sell, thus weakening the TV executives’ argument.
D
The amount of television advertising time purchased by providers of services is increasing, while the amount of such time purchased by providers of products is decreasing.
We don’t care who buys the advertising.
E
A recent survey has shown that the average number of hours people spend watching television is increasing at the rate of 2 percent every two months.
Viewership is increasing. By the end of the year, viewership will be 12% higher than the start of the year. That mostly or totally offsets the advertising price increase for advertisers on a per-viewer basis.
TV talk show host: Well, if there is such a decline, it’s not because of TV talk shows: we simply show people what they want to see. What can be wrong with letting the viewers decide? Furthermore, if restrictions were put on my show, that would amount to censorship, which is wrong.
Speaker 1 Summary
The moralist concludes that TV talk shows are contributing to moral decline. This is because the shows portray the least moral people, which makes viewers think being immoral is normal and that there’s something wrong with being morally upstanding.
Speaker 2 Summary
The host’s implicit conclusion is that there’s nothing wrong with what her TV talk show is doing. She asserts that any moral decline, if it exists, isn’t caused by TV talk shows. She also asserts that there’s nothing wrong with letting viewers decide what they want see. Additionally, she claims that any restrictions on her show would be censorship, and therefore wrong.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether TV shows are a cause of moral decline. The moralist thinks they are, and the host thinks they’re not.
A
TV talk shows should be censored
The moralist doesn’t express an opinion. Although the moralist thinks TV talk shows cause moral decline, that doesn’t mean the moralist thinks anything should be done about it. We just don’t know his opinion.
B
people’s moral standards have changed
The host doesn’t express an opinion. She says that if there’s a moral decline, TV talk shows aren’t a cause of it. She doesn’t say whether there actually is a moral decline or moral change.
C
TV talk shows influence people’s conception of what is the norm
Not a point of disagreement. The host doesn’t comment on whether TV talk shows influence the viewers. Although she does say that shows simply portray what people want to see, that doesn’t mean the host thinks the shows have no impact on viewers’ conception of what’s normal.
D
TV talk shows, by presenting immoral guests, are causing a moral decline
This is a point of disagreement. The moralist thinks TV talk shows do cause a moral decline by presenting immoral guests. The host does not think TV talk shows cause a moral decline.
E
it is wrong not to let the viewers decide what they want to see
The moralist expresses no opinion. Although she states that TV talk shows are causing a moral decline, that doesn’t tell us what she thinks about restricting what viewers can watch. Maybe she’s opposed to putting restrictions on shows, just like the host is.
Summarize Argument
The doctor thinks that the mere claim that some treatment is better than no treatment is not enough of a reason to support using a certain therapy to treat an illness. To support this, the doctor tells us that the therapy is expensive and complicated. This introduces additional factors that might make the therapy not worth it, even if the alternative is no treatment at all.
Identify Conclusion
The doctor’s conclusion is that using the therapy “cannot be adequately supported” just because it represents some treatment rather than no treatment at all.
A
The therapy is more effective than no treatment at all for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. The doctor never actually mentions whether the therapy is effective or not, and nothing in the argument would support an inference that it’s effective.
B
The therapy is more effective than other forms of treatment for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. Like (C), the doctor does not discuss any other possible treatments, so cannot compare them to the therapy that is discussed.
C
The therapy is more expensive and complicated than other forms of treatment for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. Like (B), the doctor does not discuss any other possible treatments, so cannot compare them to the therapy that is discussed.
D
The therapy should not be used to treat the illness unless it is either effective or inexpensive.
This is not stated in the argument. The doctor doesn’t make any recommendations about when the therapy “should” or “should not” be used, just says that a certain claim isn’t sufficient to justify its use.
E
The therapy’s possible effectiveness in treating the illness is not sufficient justification for using it.
This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The doctor’s entire goal is to support this claim, that just because the therapy is some treatment rather than no treatment, that isn’t enough to justify its use.