Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Bardis concludes that television does not cause people to be violent. He supports this by drawing a distinction between shows with violent imagery and commercials, saying that commercials are intended to persuade people to buy a product whereas violent shows are not intended to persuade anyone to be violent.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Bardis’s reasoning is flawed because he only attempts to refute one point made by the opposing side without offering any actual support for his own conclusion. He challenges the claim that violence on TV is analogous to commercials, arguing that they’re not comparable. However, even if he’s successfully refuted that point, he still hasn’t actually answered the question: does violent imagery on TV lead to violence or not? There’s no support for his claim that it doesn’t.
A
relies on an illegitimate inference from the fact that advertisements can change behavior to the claim that advertisements can cause violent behavior
Bardis never claims that advertisements can cause violent behavior. His conclusion is that violent imagery on TV does not cause violent behavior.
B
fails to distinguish a type of behavior from a type of stimulus that may or may not affect behavior
Bardis does in fact distinguish between a type of behavior (violence) and a type of stimulus (violent imagery) since his conclusion is that televised violent imagery does not cause violence.
C
undermines its own position by questioning the persuasive power of television advertising
Bardis does not question the persuasive power of advertising. He acknowledges that commercials cause certain behaviors, but distinguishes those commercials from media with violent imagery.
D
concludes that a claim is false on the basis of one purported fault in an argument in favor of that claim
This describes how Bardis responds to an argument that compares commercials to violent media, but offers no support for his claim that there’s no causal relationship between violent imagery and violent behavior.
E
fails to consider the possibility that the argument it disputes is intended to address a separate issue
The argument addressed by Bardis claims that violent imagery sometimes causes violent behavior, so it’s concerned with the same issue. Regardless, the problem is that there’s no support for Bardis’s conclusion that violent imagery does not cause violence.
Summary
The stimulus says that decentralization allows different parts of a large institution to function autonomously. Autonomous functioning means that the same people are making decisions and implementing policies, which in turn allows more realistic planning and encourages innovation. Finally, decentralization lets the institution’s administrators focus on big-picture issues instead of daily operations.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus supports these conclusions:
An institution whose divisions cannot function autonomously is not decentralized.
In institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not always as realistic as possible.
If an institution’s central administrators are not able to focus on big-picture issues instead of daily operations, then the institution is not decentralized.
An institution whose divisions cannot function autonomously is not decentralized.
In institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not always as realistic as possible.
If an institution’s central administrators are not able to focus on big-picture issues instead of daily operations, then the institution is not decentralized.
A
In large institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not maximally realistic.
This is strongly supported. Based on the facts, when divisions function autonomously, planning becomes more realistic. That means that institutions without autonomous divisions could improve how realistically they plan—in other words, planning is not maximally realistic.
B
Innovation is not always encouraged in large centralized institutions.
This is not supported. Sure, decentralization encourages innovation, but that doesn’t mean that centralized institutions don’t encourage innovation. Maybe every type of institutional structure encourages innovation! We don’t know.
C
For large institutions the advantages of decentralization outweigh its disadvantages.
This is not supported. The stimulus discusses some advantages of decentralization, but we never learn about disadvantages at all. That means we can’t compare whether the advantages or disadvantages are more significant.
D
The central administrations of large institutions are usually partially responsible for most of the details of daily operations.
This is not supported. We know that decentralization allows administrators to not worry about daily operations, but that doesn’t tell us anything about how operations are usually managed. We don’t even know if most large institutions are decentralized or not!
E
The people directly involved in implementing policies are always able to make innovative and realistic policy decisions.
This is not supported. Based on the facts, this style of decision-making and implementation leads to more realistic planning and more innovation. But “more” is a comparison, not an absolute judgement. Even if planning gets more realistic, it might still be not very realistic.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the manufacturing plant could fire 10 of its 1000 workers without any loss in production. Why? Because an average of 10 workers are usually absent anyway. And, when 10 workers are absent, production continues at the usual rate.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author notes that 10 workers are usually absent on any given day. However, he fails to establish that it’s the same 10 people every day. Quite possibly, which workers are absent varies from day to day.
If so, firing 10 workers would decrease the manufacturing plant’s workforce. In addition to lacking the absentee workers, the plant would now lack the fired workers. And thus production might decrease.
If so, firing 10 workers would decrease the manufacturing plant’s workforce. In addition to lacking the absentee workers, the plant would now lack the fired workers. And thus production might decrease.
A
ignores the possibility that if 10 workers were fired, each of the remaining workers would produce more televisions than previously
If the remaining workers produced more televisions, production would not go down—which would strengthen the author’s conclusion. So this can’t be the flaw.
B
fails to show that the absentee rate would drop if 10 workers were fired
The author’s conclusion requires the absentee rate to drop after the firings—but he doesn’t show that it would. Suppose the absentee rate stayed the same among the remaining workers. The workforce would then be missing both the absentee workers and the fired workers.
C
takes for granted that the normal rate of production can be attained only when no more than the average number of workers are absent
The author doesn’t presume that the normal rate of production can only be attained if the average number of workers or fewer are absent. He merely says that it is in fact attained when that number is absent.
D
overlooks the possibility that certain workers are crucial to the production of televisions
We have no specific reason to believe that the author overlooks this—unlike the flaw in (B).
E
takes for granted that the rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed at the plant
This goes far beyond what the author is arguing: it would mean that even reducing the number of workers by 80% would not affect the rate of production! The author is only contending that the loss of 10 workers wouldn’t affect production.