Summarize Argument
The author concludes that engineers who will work in industry should receive less training in fundamental mathematics. Why? Since new computer programs can solve many mathematical problems, it is less important for engineers to understand mathematics deeply. Time previously spent learning mathematics can be reapportioned to cover other topics.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that because the programs provide answers to mathematical problems, little mathematical knowledge is required to operate them. He also assumes that the computer programs in question will be used in industries where engineers work, and that other topics could use more coverage in the engineering curriculum.
A
The effective use of computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering requires an understanding of mathematical principles.
This challenges the assumption that good computer programs can replace sound mathematical reasoning. It implies that engineers with little mathematical knowledge would not be able to use these programs effectively.
B
Many of the computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are already in routine use.
This is fully compatible with the conclusion. Whether the emergence of these programs occurs in the past or future, the author advocates a change based on the expectation those programs will be in use while current students are practicing engineers.
C
Development of composites and other such new materials has meant that the curriculum for engineers who will work in industry must allow time for teaching the properties of these materials.
This strengthens the argument because it suggests time spent learning mathematical skills could be more productive if spent learning about composites.
D
Most of the computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering can be run on the types of computers available to most engineering firms.
This strengthens the argument because it suggests that most engineers who work in industry will have the capability to run these programs. It eliminates the possibility that the programs will be inaccessible to most practicing engineers.
E
The engineering curriculum already requires that engineering students be familiar with and able to use a variety of computer programs.
Proficiency in those computer programs may not make engineers proficient in the mathematical programs described. It’s not stated whether the programs engineers are already familiar with require a strong mathematical foundation.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the country’s water supply wouldn’t be threatened peat harvesting. This is because Ireland, where peat has been harvested for centuries, doesn’t have a contaminated water supply.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that her country is in virtually every important respect similar to Ireland. If this wasn’t true, then the author couldn’t draw conclusions about how harvesting peat would affect the water supply. She also assumes that peat is safe to harvest so long as it doesn’t contaminate the water supply.
A
Over hundreds of years, the ecological balance of all areas changes slowly but significantly, sometimes to the advantage of certain flora and fauna.
This tells us virtually nothing. We know peat has been safely harvested in Ireland for hundreds of years, and we don’t care what flora and fauna have benefitted in the meantime.
B
The original ecology of the peat-harvesting areas of Ireland was virtually identical to that of the undisturbed wetlands of this country.
Ireland and the wetland areas of the author’s country are virtually identical from an ecological standpoint. Thus, peat harvesting should have the same effect in this country as it did in Ireland.
C
The activities of other industries in coming years are likely to have adverse effects on the water supply of this country.
We don’t care about other industries. We care about peat.
D
The peat resources of this country are far larger than those of some countries that successfully harvest peat.
We don’t care. The only other relevant country here is Ireland, which this doesn’t mention.
E
The peat-harvesting industry of Ireland has been able to supply most of that country’s fuel for generations.
We’re trying to strengthen the claim that peat harvesting won’t contaminate the water supply. We don’t care about how beneficial peat is for fuelling a nation.
Summarize Argument
The author claims that “ambiguity inspires interpretation.” The argument proceeds with an example to prove this claim: a particular phrase is ambiguous, and has therefore been interpreted in different ways by different people.
Identify Argument Part
The claim that “ambiguity inspires interpretation” is the main conclusion of the argument. It is supported by the example of an ambiguous phrase that has prompted interpretation.
A
It is used to support the argument’s conclusion.
The claim that “ambiguity inspires interpretation” does not support anything else in the argument. Instead, it is supported by an example.
B
It is an illustration of the claim that we are the measure of all things.
The author never actually claims that we are the measure of all things. That’s just an example of an ambiguous phrase, not something that’s argued to be true. Also, nothing in the argument illustrates that we are the measure of all things.
C
It is compatible with either accepting or rejecting the argument’s conclusion.
Since the claim that “ambiguity inspires interpretation” is the argument’s conclusion, it cannot be compatible with rejecting the argument’s conclusion. That would be self-contradictory.
D
It is a view that other statements in the argument are intended to support.
This describes the main conclusion, which is precisely what the claim that “ambiguity inspires interpretation” is. The only other statement in the argument is an example which illustrates this principle, thereby supporting it.
E
It sets out a difficulty the argument is intended to solve.
The argument doesn’t attempt to solve any kind of difficulty. The author’s goal is instead to demonstrate a particular claim to be true through the use of an example.
Summarize Argument
The author claims that for a society to be stable, its citizens must have stable goals. This is a conditional claim, which is supported by chaining together two conditional premises. One premise is that a stable society necessitates laws that increase the happiness of its citizens. The other is that creating laws which increase citizens’ happiness requires most people to have “a predictable and enduring set of aspirations”, i.e. stable goals.
P1. stable society → laws increase happiness
P2. laws increase happiness → stable goals
Therefore, stable society → stable goals
P1. stable society → laws increase happiness
P2. laws increase happiness → stable goals
Therefore, stable society → stable goals
Identify Argument Part
The claim that “a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens” is one of the premises used to establish the conclusion.
A
It is the conclusion of the argument.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is a premise used to reach the conclusion. It’s not supported by anything else, so can’t be a conclusion.
B
It helps to support the conclusion of the argument.
This correctly identifies that the claim about stability and laws that increase happiness is one of the author’s premises. It supports the conclusion, and has no other role in the argument.
C
It is a claim that must be refuted if the conclusion is to be established.
The argument doesn’t contain any claims that need to be refuted. The author takes both premises for granted, and they validly yield the conclusion. It’s that simple, no refutation involved.
D
It is a consequence of the argument.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness that increase happiness can’t be a consequence of anything because nothing else leads to it. It’s just stated without any support.
E
It is used to illustrate the general principle that the argument presupposes.
The claim about stability and laws that increase happiness doesn’t illustrate anything. It combines with another premise to lead to the conclusion, but not by providing an example.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The teaching that a political assassination started World War 1 is misleading unless further qualified. Although it may be technically true, the assassination was not the most significant cause of the war. The alliances and military forces that were in place at the time were a necessary condition to war breaking out, and the assassination just happened to set them off. Since these other factors caused the war in a more meaningful sense, the assassination was only superficially the cause.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that teaching that a political assassination alone caused World War 1 is “is bound to mislead.”
A
The assassination did not cause the war, since the assassination was only the last in a chain of events leading up to the war, each of which had equal claim to being called its “cause.”
The author never claims that the assassination did not cause the war. Even though the author believes the assassination was only a cause “in a trivial sense”, it still counts as a cause.
B
The war was destined to happen, since the course of history up to that point could not have been altered.
The argument doesn’t make any claims about whether all of history leading up to the war was inevitable; although the author claims it was “inevitable” that the immediately prior conditions would lead to war, maybe something could have been changed earlier on.
C
Though the statement that the assassination caused the war is true, the term “cause” more fundamentally applies to the conditions that made it possible for that event to start the war.
This is a fair restatement of the conclusion. The author agrees that the assassination caused the war, but argues that the conditions of the time were a “deeper”, meaning more fundamental, cause. This is why teaching that the assassination alone caused the war is misleading.
D
If the assassination had occurred when it did but less military force had at that time been amassed, then the war’s outbreak might have been considerably delayed or the war might not have occurred at all.
The author doesn’t speculate about what might have happened if the conditions had been different. The argument is simply aimed at clarifying that the assassination was not the most important cause of the war.
E
Although the conditions prevailing at the time the war started made war inevitable, if the war had not been triggered by the assassination it would not have taken the course with which students of history are familiar.
The author doesn’t speculate about what might have happened if the assassination had not happened. The argument is about what can be called a “cause” of the war, not about a possible alternative history.