Summarize Argument
The author wants to convince us that we should vote. That conclusion isn’t outright stated, but the rest of the argument supports it. The author tells us that if no one voted, democracy would fail and society would crumble. Why is that relevant when considering a single vote? Because any action which would be harmful if lots of people did it is also wrong for any individual to do. This principle is supported with the analogy of dishonesty: not too impactful on a small scale, but we still consider it wrong.
Broken down, the logic looks like: actions that would be bad for everyone to do are wrong for individuals; not voting is such an action. So (implied), not voting is wrong.
Broken down, the logic looks like: actions that would be bad for everyone to do are wrong for individuals; not voting is such an action. So (implied), not voting is wrong.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion in this argument is implied, not explicitly stated: citizens should exercise their right to vote.
A
People in a democracy should not neglect to vote.
This is exactly the author’s point. Even though it’s implied rather than stated, the premises establish that it’s wrong not to vote. In other words, people should vote (or “not neglect to vote”).
B
Dishonest acts and failure to vote are equally damaging.
The argument does not support drawing an exact equivalence between dishonesty and not voting. Dishonesty is an analogy used to support the rule about when relatively low-impact actions can still be wrong. All we know is that single similarity with not voting.
C
There is a risk that individual antisocial acts will be imitated by others.
The author never talks about imitation. The principle in the argument is that individual actions can be wrong depending on the possible consequences if everyone did the same. It’s hypothetical, not a claim that everyone will do the same.
D
A single person’s vote or wrongful act can in fact make a great deal of difference.
This is not stated in the argument. The author is only talking about individual acts that don’t make much difference on their own.
E
Large-scale dishonesty and neglect of public duty will be destructive of democratic and other societies.
This claim about dishonesty is only used as an analogy to support the author’s rule about when low-impact actions might still be wrong. This supports other parts of the argument, and is not supported itself, making it a premise.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the claim that a mixture is an effective cold remedy, the cold sufferer concludes that the mixture is obviously not effective. As evidence, the cold sufferer points out that if the mixture was an effective remedy, then most people with colds would use it. However many people with colds do not use the mixture.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The cold sufferer counters a position held by others. He does this first by establishing a conditional relationship between the mixture and its use: if the mixture was an effective remedy, then most people with colds would use it. However, the cold sufferer denies the necessary condition of this relationship by stating many people with colds do not use the mixture, therefore the sufficient condition of the mixture being an effective remedy must also be denied.
A
finding a claim to be false on the grounds that it would if true have consequences that are false
The claim the cold sufferer finds false is the claim that the mixture is an effective remedy. The grounds the cold sufferer uses is the conditional relationship if the mixture is effective, then most people with colds would use it. However, this necessary condition is false.
B
accepting a claim on the basis of public opinion of the claim
The cold sufferer does not state whether the public’s opinion is that the mixture is an ineffective remedy. We cannot assume that just because many people with colds do not use the mixture that those people believe the mixture is ineffective.
C
showing that conditions necessary to establish the truth of a claim are met
The cold sufferer points out that the necessary condition for determining whether the mixture is an effective remedy is false: it is not the case that most people with colds use the mixture.
D
basing a generalization on a representative group of instances
The cold sufferer does not mention representative instances. Rather, the cold sufferer’s argument stays in general, theoretical territory.
E
showing that a measure claimed to be effective in achieving a certain effect would actually make achieving the effect more difficult
The cold sufferer does not claim that the mixture would make it more difficult for people with colds to recover. Rather, the cold sufferer is only arguing that the mixture is ineffective.
Summary
The ratio of cartilage mass to body mass is the % of an animal’s mass that is made of up cartilage. This % is higher for sharks than it is for any other organism.
Sharks have a greater resistance to cancer than any other organism.
Shark cartilage has a substance that inhibits tumor growth.
In the past 20 years, the response of terminal cancer patients to eating shark cartilage has been therapeutically better or as good as any other response of those patients to other treatments.
Sharks have a greater resistance to cancer than any other organism.
Shark cartilage has a substance that inhibits tumor growth.
In the past 20 years, the response of terminal cancer patients to eating shark cartilage has been therapeutically better or as good as any other response of those patients to other treatments.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw. I’d rely on process of elimination to identify which answer must be false.
A
No organism resists cancer better than sharks do, but some resist cancer as well as sharks.
Must be false. We know sharks have a greater resistance to cancer than any other organism. So it’s impossible for some organisms to resist cancer as well as sharks.
B
The organism most susceptible to cancer has a higher percentage of cartilage than some organisms that are less susceptible to cancer.
Could be true. We know about how sharks’ cartilage ratio compares to other animals. But we don’t know about how one non-shark animal’s cartilage ratio compares to another non-shark animal.
C
The substance in shark cartilage that inhibits tumor growth is found in most organisms.
Could be true. Sharks have a substance that inhibits tumor growth, but most other animals could have this, too. Sharks may just have more of this substance than other animals.
D
In the past 20 years many terminal cancer patients have improved dramatically following many sorts of therapy.
Could be true. Many therapies can help patients. Eating shark cartilage works as well or better than those therapies, though.
E
Some organisms have immune systems more efficient than a shark’s immune system.
Could be true. The stimulus doesn’t tell us about the efficiency of a shark’s immune system. We know about resistance to cancer, but that doesn’t guarantee anything about overall immune system efficiency.