Sasha: I agree that art should challenge society’s values. However, by its very nature, a democratic government respects dissent and encourages challenges to its own values. Therefore, in a democratic society, government art subsidies ensure that artists can be fully committed to their work while expressing themselves freely.
Speaker 1 Summary
Ariel argues that government art subsidies never benefit art because art's role is to challenge society's values. Ariel believes that since the government expresses society's values, artists who depend on government subsidies cannot challenge the institution that supports them.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sasha agrees that art should challenge society's values but believes that in a democratic society, a government encourages dissent and challenges to its values.
Objective
Disagree: Ariel and Sasha disagree that government subsidies can benefit art.
A
art’s role is to challenge society’s values
Ariel and Sasha both directly acknowledge and agree with this
B
a society’s values are expressed by its government
Ariel makes this claim, so she definitely agrees. Sasha does not address whether or not a government expresses society’s values.
C
artists can express themselves freely in a nondemocratic society
Neither speaker gives details about what artists can/cannot do in a non-democratic society.
D
art subsidies provided by a democratic government benefit art
Ariel disagrees with this because she argues that government subsidies *never* benefit art. Sasha agrees with this because she believes that in a democratic society, art subsidies greatly help artists.
E
only governments that respect dissent ensure that art subsidies are fairly distributed
Neither Ariel nor Sasha makes any statement about the fairness of the distribution of art subsidies or what kinds of governments ensure fair distribution.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
This argument concludes that public health should focus on reducing the spread of disease, rather than eradicating microorganisms that cause disease. The public health expert supports this conclusion with the claim that microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that microorganism evolution will outpace the development of medicines. This means that the previous belief that medical research would eradicate disease-causing microorganisms is no longer an ideal plan.
Identify Conclusion
The argument concludes by shifting the focus of public health towards a different method of fighting disease: “The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.”
A
A medicine that kills one variety of disease-causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
This is a premise that shows why the previous belief, that medical research would eradicate disease-causing microorganisms, is incorrect.
B
A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
This claim is not supported by the information in the argument, so it cannot be the main conclusion.
C
There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
This is the conclusion. The argument shows that we should move from the goal of eradicating microorganisms towards a focus on minimizing disease spread. This answer is a generalization of this claim and it reflects the idea of changing focus that is mentioned in the conclusion.
D
No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
This claim is not supported by the information in the argument, so it cannot be the main conclusion. The argument only says that informing the public, combined with other methods, may reduce the spread of diseases. The language in this answer is too strong.
E
Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.
We don’t know for sure that previous approaches ignored the rapid reproduction; we just know that they thought that medical research would achieve victory over the microorganisms. Either way, the conclusion concerns the future of public health, so this is not the conclusion.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that rapid population growth can be disastrous for small towns. This is because population surges can overload city services, which usually can’t be fixed by more hiring.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that city budgets don’t grow when new residents move into a city. This is why city budgets can’t hire help to fix problems caused by an influx of newcomers.
A
During budget shortages, small cities tend to place a high priority on basic municipal services while cutting back on less essential services.
The author doesn’t say anything about a budget shortage.
B
New residents of any city bring with them new ideas about how a city should be run.
The author doesn’t say the city ends up divided. The city’s services are simply overloaded.
C
Some large cities can absorb rapid population growth more readily than many small cities can.
This might be true. However, the author’s argument is about why cities struggle to absorb rapid population growth.
D
A low unemployment rate is one of the main reasons that new residents move to a city.
This is irrelevant. We don’t care why people moved to the city in the first place.
E
New residents of most small cities do not start paying city taxes for at least a year.
The city’s budget won’t increase until the new year, but city services are already overloaded. Thus, a quick population increase will make life very hard in the city.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
This argument intends to counter the claim that Mayor McKinney’s policies only benefit the wealthy residents. The author supports her rejection of this claim by establishing that one of the Mayor’s policies, the decrease in property taxes, led to more development, which led to more housing, causing rent stabilization––which clearly benefits the less wealthy residents, therefore demonstrating that the criticism of the Mayor is unfair.
Identify Conclusion
The argumetn concludes by rejecting the claim that the Mayor’s policies only benefit wealthy residents: “That is not a fair evaluation.”
A
It is impossible to tell whether McKinney is more committed to the interests of the wealthy than to those of the poor.
This comparative claim, which weighs McKinney’s dedication to the wealthy against her dedication to the poor, is not a claim made in the argument, so it cannot be the main conclusion.
B
McKinney’s policies have often been criticized for benefiting only wealthy city residents.
This is the claim that the argument is trying to disprove; the author’s main conclusion goes against this idea.
C
The decrease in property taxes that McKinney supported caused more development to take place in the city.
This claim of a causal relationship is used as a premise to support the sub-conclusion that McKinney’s policies helped end the housing shortage. That sub-conclusion helps support the main conclusion that McKinney’s policies do not only benefit the wealthy. So, this is a premise.
D
The criticism that McKinney’s policies benefit only the wealthy is unjustified.
This is the main conclusion. This claim contradicts the criticism against Mayor McKinney, and the rest of the argument is used as support for this claim.
E
McKinney’s efforts helped end the housing shortage and stabilize the rents in the city.
This is a sub-conclusion that is used to support the main conclusion by demonstrating that Mayor McKinney’s policies do not only benefit the rich. The claim in this answer provides justification for the fact that some of the mayor’s policies benefit the poor.