Summarize Argument
The author argues that there are no shared values across cultures as long as there are distinct cultures. She supports this by citing anthropological evidence: distinct cultures differ in their moral codes.
Notable Assumptions
Based on the fact moral codes differ between cultures, the author assumes that no two distinct cultures share the same moral value. This means she believes that all the values contained in a moral code are unique to that moral code. She also believes that when cultures differ on moral codes, they differ entirely rather than by degree or at the margins.
A
Anthropologists rely on inadequate translation techniques to investigate the values of cultures that use languages different from the anthropologists’ languages.
The study is flawed, so any conclusions drawn from the study are questionable. Here, anthropologists might not’ve correctly identified if moral codes really differ between cultures or not.
B
As a result of advancing technology and global communication, we will someday all share the same culture and the same values.
Whether or not we all share the same culture has no bearing on distinct cultures, even if those cultures exist only as hypotheticals. Since the author concludes about distinct cultures, this doesn’t weaken.
C
Although specific moral values differ across cultures, more general moral principles, such as “Friendship is good,” are common to all cultures.
Specific values differ, but foundational values show similarities among cultures. This means that some values, in a broad sense, may be shared among cultures.
D
The anthropologists who have studied various cultures have been biased in favor of finding differences rather than similarities between distinct cultures.
Anthropologists provide flawed studies, which means we can’t draw conclusions from them. This weakens the argument, which is supported only by an anthropological study.
E
What appear to be differences in values between distinct cultures are nothing more than differences in beliefs about how to live in accordance with shared values.
Contrary to the author’s conclusion, cultures actually do share values. The differences are actually about beliefs.
Summarize Argument
The speaker concludes that businesses should use power responsibly in order to hold that power as long as possible. Why? Because according to history and the “Iron Law of Responsibility,” society will eventually act to disempower institutions it thinks are misusing power.
Notable Assumptions
The speaker assumes that a business must act responsibly in order for society to view it as responsible. She also assumes that when society tries to disempower an irresponsible business, it will have success. In addition, she assumes using power responsibly will not prevent a business from reaching the “long run.”
A
Government institutions are as subject to the Iron Law of Responsibility as business institutions.
This doesn’t mean businesses are exempt from that rule. This supports expanding the speaker’s argument to government institutions, but does not weaken her argument relating to businesses.
B
Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not.
This challenges the speaker’s assumption that a business must act responsibly in order to be viewed as responsible. It implies businesses can hold their power by acting irresponsibly but maintaining good public relations.
C
The power of some institutions erodes more slowly than the power of others, whether they are socially responsible or not.
This is an irrelevant distinction between institutions. The speed of that erosion is not important to the speaker’s argument, because she admits the “long run” is different in each case.
D
Since no institution is eternal, every business will eventually fail.
This is fully compatible with the speaker’s argument. She explains how businesses should act to remain powerful as long as they can—she does not imply they can retain power forever.
E
Some businesses that have used power in socially responsible ways have lost it.
The speaker does not say that socially responsible businesses will last forever. She states only that social responsibility will maximize the time a business has power.
Summary
The argument concludes that passengers are safer on airplanes with a collision-evasion system equipped, even though the system frequently warns pilots of phantom airplanes. This is supported by the premise that the system warns pilots to evade possible collisions.
Notable Assumptions
The argument assumes that the phantom warnings don’t create more danger than the system prevents. For example, that pilots don’t take dangerous evasion maneuvers in response to phantom warnings.
It also assumes that pilots actually respond to the system’s warnings frequently enough to avoid possible collisions. Otherwise, the system’s presence wouldn’t make much difference to safety at all.
It also assumes that pilots actually respond to the system’s warnings frequently enough to avoid possible collisions. Otherwise, the system’s presence wouldn’t make much difference to safety at all.
A
Passengers feel no safer on airplanes equipped with the radar system than on comparable airplanes not so equipped.
Whether or not passengers feel safer isn’t important to determining whether or not they are safer—in fact, it’s not relevant at all.
B
Warnings given by a collision-avoidance system about phantom airplanes are not caused by distorted radar signals.
The possible cause of phantom airplane warnings doesn’t make any difference to the argument, so can’t be necessary.
C
The frequency of invalid warnings will not cause pilots routinely to disregard the system’s warnings.
For the argument to make sense, pilots have to actually act on the system’s warnings—otherwise the system would make no difference. If we negated this, meaning pilots just ignored the warnings, that would leave the conclusion unsupported.
D
Commercial passenger airplanes are not the only planes that can be equipped with a collision-avoidance system.
Whether or not the system can be equipped on other types of planes is irrelevant to whether it makes commercial air passengers safer.
E
The greatest safety risk for passengers traveling on commercial passenger airplanes is that of a midair collision.
The argument just claims that passengers are safer with the system than without it. Whether that means they’re a lot safer or a little safer doesn’t really matter, so this isn’t a necessary assumption.
Summary
The author concludes that the best way to teach history is to spend most class time on the lives of historical figures and very little time on dates and statistics.
Why?
Because most students are bored by history courses as they’re usually taught. The usual way is to spend a large amount of time on dates and statistics.
Why?
Because most students are bored by history courses as they’re usually taught. The usual way is to spend a large amount of time on dates and statistics.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that spending most class time on recounting the lives of historical figures is NOT just as boring as spending a large amount of time on dates and statistics.
Also, the author assumes that boring students is something that detracts from the effectiveness of teaching history.
Also, the author assumes that boring students is something that detracts from the effectiveness of teaching history.
A
One should avoid boring one’s students when teaching a history course.
Necessary, because if it weren’t true, then the fact the current method of teaching history is boring wouldn’t constitute a reason a different way would be better.
B
It is not incompatible with the attainable goals of teaching history to spend very little class time on dates and statistics.
Necessary, because if it IS incompatible with the attainable goals of teaching history to spend little class time on dates and statistics, then the author’s proposed “best way” to teach wouldn’t be the best way to teach history.
C
It is possible to recount the lives of historical figures without referring to dates and statistics.
Not necessary, because the author doesn’t conclude that the best way to teach history is to completely avoid referring to dates and statistics. The conclusion is just that the best way involves spending “very little” time on dates and statistics.
D
It is compatible with the attainable goals of teaching history to spend most class time recounting the lives of historical figures.
Necessary, because if the author’s proposed method of teaching history is NOT compatible with the attainable goals of teaching history, then the method would not constitute the best way of teaching history.
E
Students are more bored by history courses as they are usually taught than they would be by courses that spend most class time recounting the lives of historical figures.
Necessary, because if students are NOT more bored by the usual method than they would be by the author’s proposed method, then the premise no longer provides a reason to think that the proposed method is better. What the author proposes would be just as boring.