Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that Japanese art collectors in the 1980s had a preference for certain aesthetic attributes in nineteenth-century Impressionist paintings. This is because Japanese art collectors were very active purchasing such paintings in the 1980s.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Japanese collectors bought nineteenth-century Impressionist paintings in the 1980s out of aesthetic preference, rather than because of other forces, such as market forces. Perhaps these collectors believed such paintings would rise in value over the next decade and planned to sell later on, or perhaps those collectors had some academic interest in the paintings.
A
Impressionist paintings first became popular among art collectors in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century.
We don’t care what European art collectors in the early twentieth century think of Impressionism. We’re talking about Japanese collectors, and we have no reason to connect the two groups.
B
During the 1980s, the Japanese economy underwent a sustained expansion that was unprecedented in the country’s recent history.
This doesn’t tell us anything about why Japanese collectors were so interested in nineteenth-century Impressionism.
C
Several nineteenth-century Impressionist painters adopted certain techniques and visual effects found in Japanese prints that are highly esteemed in Japan.
Japanese collectors’ tastes were influenced by their aesthetic milieu. Since esteemed Japanese prints share features with nineteenth-century Impressionist paintings, Japanese collectors gravitated towards these paintings on aesthetic grounds.
D
During the 1960s and 1970s, the prices of nineteenth-century Impressionist paintings often exceeded the prices of paintings by older European masters.
We don’t care about the 1960s and 1970s. We’re talking about Japanese collectors in the 1980s, so trends in earlier decades aren’t relevant here.
E
During the 1980s, collectors from Japan and around the world purchased many paintings and prints by well-known twentieth-century Japanese artists.
We don’t care about twentieth-century Japanese artists. We’re interested in nineteenth-century Impressionism and Japanese collectors.
Anna: But the videocassette itself only accounts for 5 percent of the price a video rental store pays to buy a copy of a movie on video; most of the price consists of royalties the store pays to the studio that produced the movie. So the price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5 percent, and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies.
Summarize Argument
Without stating her conclusion directly, Anna argues that switching to the new videocassette will not save rental stores much money. Why? Because the actual videocassette costs little compared to royalties, and buying copies of movies more frequently would require the stores to pay those royalties more often.
Notable Assumptions
Anna assumes the new videocassette will not lead to a large increase in rentals. In addition, she assumes that rental stores routinely wear out videocassettes, or would do so if they switch to the new kind. She also assumes that a savings of far less than five percent is not “significantly more economical” than no savings, and that the royalties paid more often would be paid at a similar price.
A
The price that video rental stores pay for movies recorded on videocassettes is considerably less than the retail price of those movies.
This explains how the stores remain in business, not why switching to the new videocassette would save them money. If stores pay a small amount for videocassettes to begin with, then Tony’s position is more challenging to defend.
B
A significant proportion of the movies on videocassette purchased by video rental stores are bought as replacements for worn-out copies of movies the stores already have in stock.
This doesn’t imply the stores would avoid paying royalties on those purchases. It’s possible a store pays royalties each time it purchases a new videocassette, in which case this fact would not save rental stores money.
C
The royalty fee included in the price that video rental stores pay for movies on the new kind of videocassette will be half that included in the price of movies on the old kind.
This weakens Anna’s argument by questioning her assumption that the new videocassette would only save stores money on the physical copies. If stores will also save on royalty costs, their total savings may be much greater than 5 percent.
D
Given a choice, customers are more likely to buy a movie on videocassette than to rent it if the rental fee is more than half of the purchase price.
Since it is unknown how rental fees and purchase prices compare, this information is useless. It cannot be applied to video rental stores in total.
E
Many of the movies rented from video rental stores, particularly children’s movies, average several viewings per rental fee.
This may explain why the videocassettes get worn out, but does not support either speaker’s argument. Neither Anna nor Tony relies on the rate that videocassettes need replaced for their argument.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes dolphins have advanced cognitive abilities, possibly including language and foresight. Why? Because two particular dolphins sometimes show different, synchronized reactions to the same hand signal by their trainer.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no explanation for the dolphins’ behavior besides their having complex brain functions. In particular, he assumes the dolphins’ movements are original and not planned by a human in any way. To conclude dolphins can use language, the author must assume they communicate before performing their synchronized actions.
A
Mammals have some resemblance to one another with respect to bodily function and brain structure.
This is irrelevant, whether it refers to individuals or whole species. Similarity between animals does not itself account for their ability to perform synchronized actions, nor does it suggest they have complex thought processes.
B
The dolphins often exhibit complex new responses to the hand signal.
This strengthens the argument because the originality of the dolphins’ movements supports the author’s subconclusion: they aren’t just rehearsing responses to a stimulus.
C
The dolphins are given food incentives as part of their training.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t say the dolphins are coaxed with food to perform the particular actions described, nor that a potential food reward makes their cognitive responses necessarily complex.
D
Dolphins do not interact with humans the way they interact with one another.
This doesn’t mean dolphins communicate using language or display complex thought processes. They may interact differently simply because they’re reacting to different stimuli.
E
Some of the behaviors mentioned are exhibited by dolphins in their natural habitat.
This isn’t relevant without knowing which behaviors are exhibited naturally. It doesn’t say the dolphins naturally perform synchronized reactions or respond to the same stimulus in various ways.
Maurice: But you are recommending nothing short of censorship! Besides which, your claim that television and movie depictions of violence cause violence is mistaken: violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries.
Summarize Argument
Jane argues violence among teenagers shouldn’t be shown in movies and on television, at least not in shows for young people. Why not? Because movies and television programs are influential, and many currently show violence among teenagers, meaning those programs likely cause young people to act violently.
Notable Assumptions
Jane assumes influential media containing violence between teenagers cause young people to act violently. This means assuming that young people are exposed to the violent depictions of teenagers and that those depictions have an impact on their behavior.
A
The most violent characters depicted in movies and on television programs are adult characters who are portrayed by adult actors.
This is irrelevant. Jane believes depictions of violence among teenagers in particular influence young people, so the most violent characters being adults doesn’t matter to her argument.
B
The movies that have been shown to have the most influence on young people’s behavior are those that are promoted to young audiences.
This strengthens Jane’s argument because it suggests that curbing violence between teenagers on shows marketed towards young people will have an effect on their behavior.
C
The people who make the most profits in the movie and television industry are those who can successfully promote their work to both young and old audiences.
This is irrelevant. Jane doesn’t claim prohibiting violent depictions will be easy, or even possible. Some people may resist such a ban, but that wouldn’t affect her conclusion, which is a value judgment.
D
Many adolescents who engage in violent behavior had already displayed such behavior before they were exposed to violence in movies.
This weakens Jane’s argument. It suggests violence shown in movies doesn’t cause much of the violence perpetrated by young people.
E
Among the producers who make both movies and television programs, many voluntarily restrict the subject matter of films directed toward young audiences.
This doesn’t mean the ban Jane’s advocating already exists, in whole or in part. There’s no indication such producers make shows meant for young people or that they exclude violence among teenagers from those shows.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The conservationists hypothesize that non-native predators are endangering ringtail opossums, instead of a food scarcity. Why? Because non-native foxes killed 75 percent of a particular group of opossums that had been rehabilitated and returned to the wild.
Notable Assumptions
The conservationists assume the group of opossums raised in captivity died in a way typical of the general ringtail opossum population. This means assuming the group was large enough and diverse enough to be representative of ringtail opossums in Australia. They also assume a food scarcity would not make ringtail opossums any more vulnerable to predators and that their endangerment cannot be explained by anything except non-native predation.
A
There are fewer non-native predator species that prey on the ringtail opossum than there are native species that prey on the ringtail opossum.
This doesn’t mean non-native predators pose a larger threat. If anything, it suggests the total number of opossums killed by native predators could be greater than the number killed by non-native predators, which would weaken the argument.
B
Foxes, which were introduced into Australia over 200 years ago, adapted to the Australian climate less successfully than did some other foreign species.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t mean other non-native species pose an even larger threat to ringtail opossums than foxes—there’s no indication those other species even prey on foxes.
C
The ringtail opossums that were raised in captivity were fed a diet similar to that which ringtail opossums typically eat in the wild.
This suggests the opossums killed had diets that were typical of wild opossums, not that their cause of death was typical. It doesn’t disfavor the leading alternative hypothesis, a food scarcity, because it doesn’t imply the opossums killed were able to find food in the wild.
D
Few of the species that compete with the ringtail opossum for food sources are native to Australia.
This is irrelevant. The conservationists explicitly blame non-native predators for the ringtail opossum’s endangerment, not species that compete with them for food.
E
Ringtail opossums that grow to adulthood in the wild defend themselves against foxes no more successfully than do ringtail opossums raised in captivity.
This rules out an alternative explanation for the opossums’ deaths: that the opossums raised in captivity were killed by foxes in large numbers because they were unusually bad at protecting themselves.