Ruth: Your reasoning is absurd. There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman culture, even though those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture. Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period as recent as the 1960s?
Speaker 1 Summary
Jorge concludes that Ruth can’t write well about rock music of the 1960s. This is because that music was created by and for people in their teens and early twenties, and Ruth was only a baby at that time.
Speaker 2 Summary
Ruth’s conclusion (expressed in a rhetorical question) is that her age does not prevent her from writing well about music of the 1960s. As support, she points out that living people can write well about ancient Roman culture despite not being a part of ancient Roman culture.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether Ruth will be able to write well about rock music of the 1960s. They also disagree about whether one who wasn’t in their teens or twenties during the 1960s can write well about music from that period.
A
whether only those people who were in their teens or early twenties during the 1960s can be qualified to write about the rock music of that period
This is a point of disagreement. Jorge thinks being of those ages is required to write about rock music from the 1960s. Ruth doesn’t think so.
B
whether people who were in their teens or early twenties during the 1960s can write well about the rock music of that period
Not a point of disagreement. Jorge thinks being those ages is required to write well about rock music of the 1960s. Ruth doesn’t think age prevents one from writing well about music from a different time period. We have no reason to think there’s disagreement about this answer.
C
whether only people who are past their early twenties can write well about ancient cultures
Jorge doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t comment on ancient cultures or what’s required to write well about those cultures.
D
whether people who are not now in their teens or early twenties can write well about the rock music of the 1960s
Not a point of disagreement. Jorge thinks one had to be in their teens or twenties during the 1960s to write well about 1960s rock. But an older person today who was of those ages in 1960s might write well. Ruth agrees that age doesn’t prevent one from writing well.
E
whether Ruth’s ideas about the rock music of the 1960s are likely to appeal to people who were in their teens or early twenties during that period
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses the appeal of Ruth’s ideas about anything. Although they comment about writing well, that’s not necessarily the same as having appealing ideas.
Ruth: Your reasoning is absurd. There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman culture, even though those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture. Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period as recent as the 1960s?
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Ruth concludes that Jorge is “absurd” to claim that Ruth will be unable to write well about music created while she was a baby. To support her position, Ruth draws an analogy to modern authors who write well about ancient historical eras long before the authors were born.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Ruth counters Jorge’s argument by analogizing with a similar case where Jorge’s reasoning clearly doesn’t hold up. By showing that Jorge’s reasoning doesn’t work in the analogous case, Ruth undermines its application to her own case.
A
challenging his claim that she was not in her teens or early twenties during the 1960s
Ruth simply doesn’t make this claim. Her point is that it doesn’t matter that she was an infant during the 1960s.
B
clarifying a definition of popular culture that is left implicit in Jorge’s argument
Ruth never offers a definition of popular culture, nor does Jorge discuss popular culture at all.
C
using the example of classical culture in order to legitimize contemporary culture as an object worthy of serious consideration
Ruth doesn’t mention trying to legitimize contemporary culture—she does use classical culture as an example, but it’s to demonstrate that people can write well about a culture they weren’t part of.
D
offering an analogy to counter an unstated assumption of Jorge’s argument
Ruth offers an analogy with authors writing about ancient Roman culture, in order to counter Jorge’s assumption that people can’t write well about a culture they weren’t part of. This is how she concludes that Jorge’s argument is “absurd.”
E
casting doubt on her opponent’s qualification to make judgments about popular culture
Ruth never discusses Jorge’s qualifications, to judge popular culture or to do anything else. Not to mention, Jorge doesn’t actually make any judgments about popular culture.
Summary
The wholesale price of one bottle of Veritas Vineyards win is the same today as it was in 1991. The winegrower’s profit is equal to the wholesale price minus the cost of the glass bottles and the corks. Between 1991 and today, all of the costs to produce a bottle of Veritas Vineyards win have remained constant, except that of the corks. Corks cost twice as much today as they cost in 1991.
Notable Valid Inferences
Each bottle of Veritas Vineyards wine sold today generates less profit than each bottle sold in 1991.
A
The number of bottles of Veritas Vineyards wine sold has remained unchanged between 1991 and the present.
Could be false. We have no information in the stimulus about the number of bottles being sold. We only have information about the price of each bottle and what costs affect the winegrower’s profits.
B
Each bottle of Veritas Vineyards wine that is sold today brings the winegrower less profit than did each bottle sold in 1991.
Must be true. We can combine the facts that profit is a function of the wholesale price minus the cost of bottles and corks, corks today are twice as expensive, and the wholesale price is the same today as it was in 1991.
C
The cost to the cork maker of producing the corks used in bottles of Veritas Vineyards wine has increased since 1991.
Could be false. We have no information in the stimulus about the costs imposed on cork makers. We only have information about the price of each bottle and what costs affect the winegrower’s profits.
D
The aggregate profit generated by the winegrower’s sales of Veritas Vineyards wine this year is smaller than the aggregate profit generated in 1991.
Could be false. The stimulus is limited to a winegrower’s profit per bottle of wine sold. Aggregate profit is the profit generated accounting for all bottles sold. We have no information in the stimulus about the number of bottles sold to infer this statement.
E
The cost of each cork used in bottling Veritas Vineyards wine is currently greater than the cost of each glass bottle itself.
Could be false. We have no information about the cost of corks compared with the cost of bottles. We cannot assume that just because corks have doubled in price that means corks are twice as expensive as bottles. We only know corks today are twice as expensive as corks in 1991.