Relevant lessons: Referential phrasing | Phenomenon-hypothesis questions | Weakening Questions
Relevant lessons: Referential phrasing | Phenomenon-hypothesis questions | Weakening Questions
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientist hypothesizes that the Earth’s warming is a result of the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere. She bases this on the fact that such gases block the outward flow of heat away from the planet.
Notable Assumptions
Based merely on a correlation between the buildup of gases and the Earth’s warming, the scientist assumes that the former causes the latter. This means she doesn’t believe that the causal relationship is the inverse, or that there’s some hidden third factor causing both a building of gases and the Earth’s warming. The scientist also assumes a true (i.e. 1:1) correlation between the buildup of gases and the Earth’s warming over the last century, without providing data to prove such a correlation.
A
Only some of the minor gases whose presence in the atmosphere allegedly resulted in the phenomenon described by the scientist were produced by industrial pollution.
The stimulus never mentions pollution. The scientist doesn’t seem to care what caused the gases to build up in the atmosphere.
B
Most of the warming occurred before 1940, while most of the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere occurred after 1940.
If the warming largely preceded the gas buildup, the gas buildup certainly couldn’t have caused the warming. This destroys the causation that the scientist assumes to be true.
C
Over the last century, Earth received slightly more solar radiation in certain years than it did in others.
We don’t know which years those were, or what the effects of solar radiation are. This doesn’t give us nearly enough information.
D
Volcanic dust and other particles in the atmosphere reflect much of the Sun’s radiation back into space before it can reach Earth’s surface.
The scientist doesn’t care about solar radiation.
E
The accumulation of minor gases in the atmosphere has been greater over the last century than at any other time in Earth’s history.
We don’t care about what happened in past centuries. We need to know if the buildup of gases in the last century caused the Earth’s warming.
Relevant lessons: For, since, because | Conditional logic | Sufficient assumption questions
Relevant lessons: For, since, because | Conditional logic | Sufficient assumption questions
Summarize Argument
A play called Mankind must have been written between 1431 and 1471. This is because a certain coin referenced in the play wasn’t in circulation until 1431, and because a certain king referenced in the play as a living monarch died in 1471.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the rose noble coin didn’t exist before it went into circulation. The author also assumes that because Henry VI was mentioned as living in the play’s means he was really alive. This means the author assumes that the dedication is historically accurate and representative of the time the play was written, rather than tacked on by a later playwright or compiler.
A
The Royal Theatre Company includes the play on a list of those performed in 1480.
We’re not interested in when the play was performed. We care about when it was written.
B
Another coin mentioned in the play was first minted in 1422.
Even if that coin was first minted in 1422, it could well have been in circulation later. The reason the rose noble is so important is because it wasn’t in circulation until 1431.
C
The rose noble was neither minted nor circulated after 1468.
Even if the coin was out of circulation 1468, it still could’ve been mentioned in the play. This doesn’t weaken the claim that Mankind was written between 1431 and 1471.
D
Although Henry VI was deposed in 1461, he was briefly restored to the throne in 1470.
At best, this simply means Mankind was written between 1431-61 and 1470-71, which doesn’t weaken the argument. But even if Henry VI was deposed in the 1460s, he was still a “living monarch” at the time—just one not currently ruling the country.
E
In a letter written in early 1428, a merchant told of having seen the design for a much-discussed new coin called the “rose noble.”
This pushes the possible date for Mankind to have been written back three years. Even if the rose noble wasn’t in circulation, there was a chance the playwright had heard of it.