Theo: Popular music is not supposed to reflect reality; it performs other artistic functions, such as providing consoling fantasies and helping people create some romance in their often difficult lives. You should understand popular music before you condemn it.
Speaker 1 Summary
Popular music is bad art. Why? Because it fails to represent reality accurately by greatly exaggerating the role love plays in everyday life.
Speaker 2 Summary
Popular music serves other artistic functions, it is not supposed to reflect reality. You should understand popular music before you criticize it.
Objective
We need a statement that Maria and Theo disagree on. They disagree whether art needs to represent reality accurately to be considered good art. Maria thinks popular music is bad art because it does not represent reality. Theo thinks an accurate representation is not required because popular music serves other artistic functions.
A
most good art creates consoling illusions
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Both speakers limit their arguments to popular music. We don’t know what Maria or Theo believe about most good art.
B
some bad art exaggerates the role love plays in everyday life
Theo does not express an opinion on this statement. We don’t know from the stimulus what Theo thinks bad art does.
C
art should always represent reality as it could be, not as it is
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We don’t know what Maria or Theo think art should always do.
D
art need not represent reality accurately to be good art
Maria and Theo disagree on this statement. Maria disagrees because she concludes popular music is bad art for the sole reason that it does not accurately represent reality. Theo would agree because popular music serves other artistic purposes.
E
popular music should not be considered to be an art form
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. Maria thinks that popular music is bad art, but that does not mean that she thinks popular music should not be considered art at all.
</section
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that lawmakers’ proposal to have milk labels list the artificial substances used in milk production should not be implemented. This is supported by some examples of unexpected information these labels would have to include, like fertilizer used to grow the cows’ feed. The examples imply that it would be too impractical to list all of the many artificial substances used in the many steps of milk production.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters the lawmakers’ proposal by pointing out unforeseen consequences of the proposal that would make implementing the proposal unreasonable.
A
proposing an alternative course of action for achieving the objectives of the proposal being argued against
The author doesn’t propose any alternatives, but is simply arguing against the feasibility of the entire proposal.
B
raising considerations in order to show that the proposal being argued against, if strictly implemented, would lead to absurd consequences
The author raises the consideration that a consequence of the proposal would be the absurd requirement to list substances like fertilizers and fungicides, which are technically part of the process of milk production.
C
using specific examples in order to show that an alternative to the proposal being argued against would better achieve the ends to which the original proposal was directed
The author doesn’t suggest any alternatives to the proposal being argued against, and only argues against the proposal on the grounds of the likely consequences of its implementation.
D
introducing a case analogous to the one under consideration to show that a general implementation of the proposal being argued against would be impossible
The author doesn’t make any analogies about a general case, and only argues that implementing the proposal would be highly unreasonable, not impossible.
E
questioning the motivation of those who made the proposal being argued against
The author doesn’t address the motivations of the lawmakers who made the proposal at any point, and only argues based on the likely consequences of the proposal itself.
Summary
Economist’s obsession with consumption as a measure of economic well-being prevents us from understanding true economic well-being. Why? Because we are not very satisfied by the fact that some things must be replaced.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There is more to economic well-being than consumption.
A
economic well-being cannot be defined solely in terms of consumption
We should not define economic-well being solely in terms of consumption because we don’t get much satisfaction from replacing things we have consumed.
B
satisfaction is possible without consumption
We don’t know whether the author believes satisfaction is possible without consumption. Rather, the author is making an argument that there’s more to satisfaction than consumption.
C
valid measures of consumption cannot be devised
We don’t know whether the author believes that we cannot measure consumption accurately.
D
modern products are designed for early obsolescence
We don’t know whether the author believes modern products are designed to be discarded early.
E
satisfaction can provide an adequate quantitative measure of economic well-being
We don’t know whether the author believes satisfaction can accurately measure economic well-being. We only know that the author believes that there’s more to economic well-being than consumption.
Summarize Argument
The diplomat concludes that arms control agreements will preserve peace. She supports this by saying that every major war in the last 200 years was preceded by a rapid increase in weapons acquisition by the countries involved.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The diplomat argues that arms control agreements will stop major wars. She assumes that a war won't happen unless there’s rapid increase in weapon acquisition, just because every major war in the last 200 years followed this pattern. But past events don't guarantee future outcomes.
A
The argument infers, merely from the claim that events of one type have for a long time consistently preceded events of a second type, that an event of the second type will not occur unless an event of the first type occurs.
She infers, merely from the claim that increases in weapon acquisition have consistently preceded major wars, that major wars will not occur unless increases in weapon acquisition occur. But just because things happened this way in the past doesn’t mean they will in the future.
B
The argument reasons that, simply because weapons are used in war, a rapid, dramatic increase in the acquisition of weapons will always lead to war.
The diplomat never claims that we can’t have increases in weapons acquisition without subsequent wars. She claims that we can’t have wars without preceding increases in weapons acquisition.
C
The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the conclusion is a restatement of a premise. The diplomat doesn’t make this mistake; her premise and conclusion are distinct.
D
The argument fails to consider that a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by a nation may be a response to the increased armament of neighboring nations.
The diplomat doesn’t mention this, but it isn’t a flaw in her argument. She’s arguing that arms control agreements will stop wars. Whether increases in weapon acquisition are a response to the armament of other nations is irrelevant because those increases may still precede wars.
E
The argument fails to consider that some of the minor wars that have occurred in the last 200 years may have been preceded by rapid increases in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those wars.
The diplomat doesn’t mention minor wars but, if anything, (E) would strengthen her argument. She’s focused on the connection between major wars and weapons acquisition, but if minor wars are also preceded by weapons acquisition, this further supports her argument.