Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The argument discusses a famous artist's claim that all great art imitates nature. However, the author points out that most great music does not imitate anything, such as ocean waves or animal sounds. Because of this, the argument concludes that either:
The artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not actually great art since it doesn’t imitate nature.
The artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not actually great art since it doesn’t imitate nature.
Identify Conclusion
The artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not actually great art since it doesn’t imitate nature.
A
Music is inferior to the other arts.
The author does not say whether certain kinds of art are inferior to others. This argument is solely focused on the famous artist’s claim.
B
Either the artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not great art.
This reflects the conflict between the famous artist’s claim and the premise that most great music does not imitate nature. Thus, either the famous artist is wrong, or most music is not great art because it does not imitate nature.
C
Like some great music, some great painting and sculpture may fail to imitate nature.
The argument does not talk about painting or sculpture. It is focused on the relationship between great art and music.
D
Some elements of nature cannot be represented adequately by great art.
This is not discussed in the argument and does not receive any support. The argument centers on what conclusions can be drawn from famous artist’s argument, given that most great music does not imitate anything at all.
E
Sounds that do not imitate nature are not great music.
The author directly contradicts this by acknowledging that most great music does not imitate nature. The famous artist *may* believe this, but it is certainly not the main conclusion of this argument.
Tamara: That is not true. Many wealthy Japanese during the Tokugawa period had their houses constructed with intentionally squeaky floors so that they would receive warning if a ninja were in the house.
Summarize Argument
Tamara concludes that it is not true that most Japanese people did not fear ninjas during Japan’s Tokugawa period. She bases this on the fact that, during the Tokugawa period, many wealthy Japanese people installed intentionally squeaky floors in their homes so that they would know if a ninja snuck in.
Notable Assumptions
Tamara assumes that wealthy Japanese people during the Tokugawa period are a representative sample of most Japanese people at that time. She assumes that, just because many wealthy people seem to have feared ninjas, that means that most other Japanese people also feared ninjas.
A
Many poor Japanese during the Tokugawa period also had houses constructed with intentionally squeaky floors.
This strengthens Tamara’s argument slightly by showing that more than just wealthy Japanese people appear to have feared ninjas. We instead need an answer choice that weakens her conclusion that most Japanese people feared ninjas in the Tokugawa period.
B
As part of their secret training, ninjas learned to walk on squeaky floors without making a sound.
Even if their squeaky floors weren’t an effective defense against ninjas, wealthy Japanese people still seem to have feared them. The questions remains whether these wealthy Japanese accurately represented all Japanese people during the Tokugawa period.
C
The wealthy made up a small portion of Japan’s population during the Tokugawa period.
This weakens the argument by showing that Tamara's assumption that wealthy Japanese accurately represent all Japanese people is false. (C) points out that Tamara can't draw a conclusion about all Japanese people in the Tokugawa period based only on evidence about wealthy people.
D
The fighting prowess of ninjas was exaggerated to mythic proportions in the years following the Tokugawa period.
Whether or not ninjas were truly great fighters doesn’t change the fact that many wealthy Japanese people seem to have been afraid of them during the Tokugawa period. (D) doesn’t weaken Tamara’s conclusion or point out that her assumption is false.
E
There were very few ninjas at any time other than during the Tokugawa period.
Tamara’s conclusion is only about Japanese people during the Tokugawa period, so the presence or absence of ninjas at any other time period is not relevant.
The author argues that publishing scholarly journals is likely much more profitable now than in the past. She supports this by pointing out that university libraries are paying much higher subscription rates, while the costs of publishing remain the same.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that publishers’ profits have increased just because one subset of their consumers’ are paying more. She ignores the possibility that other streams of revenue have remained unchanged or have decreased.
A
Many university libraries have begun to charge higher and higher fines for overdue books and periodicals as a way of passing on increased journal subscription costs to library users.
We are concerned with the profits of publishing companies, not libraries. We thus need an answer choice that weakens the conclusion that publishing companies’ profits have increased. (A) tells us instead what libraries are doing in response to increased costs.
B
A university library’s acquisition budget usually represents only a small fraction of its total operating budget.
Like (A), this is discussing the budget and costs of university libraries. But we are only concerned with the revenue and profits of publishing companies.
C
Publishing a scholarly journal is an expensive enterprise, and publishers of such journals cannot survive financially if they consistently lose money.
The cost of publishing a scholarly journal is irrelevant. We know that publishing costs have remained constant either way, so this doesn’t weaken the author’s conclusion that publishers’ profits have increased due to increased subscription costs for university libraries.
D
Most subscribers to scholarly journals are individuals, not libraries, and the subscription rates for individuals have generally remained unchanged for the past several years.
This weakens the argument by showing that the author’s key assumption is false. Because most subscribers are individuals whose subscription rates haven’t changed, it’s not the case that publishing a scholarly journal is much more profitable now than it was several years ago.
E
The majority of scholarly journals are published no more than four times a year.
This does not weaken the author’s conclusion that publishers’ profits have increased due to increased subscription costs for university libraries. The frequency of journal publications is irrelevant because we are only talking about the publishers’ profits.
Here's what the NOT flawed version of the stimulus would look like.
(Premise) sound theories AND successful implementation --> lower inflation rate
(Premise) [not] lower inflation rate
___________
(Good conclusion) [not] sound theories AND successful implementation
(Good conclusion with the negation distributed via De Morgan's) not sound theories OR not successful implementation
(Bad conclusion in the stimulus) not sound theories
The argument is flawed because it could be that the theories were fine, just that we sucked at implementing them.
In its abstract form, the flawed argument looks like this:
N and W --> R
/R
___________
/N
(C) matches this form perfectly.
(E) is an attractive wrong answer choice. It's mostly wrong because its logical form does not match:
N --> W and R
/R
___________
/N'
The argument for (E) being better than (C) is that (E) matches the other "mistake" in the argument.
The stimulus argument assumes that "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories. True, it does. But, I don't think it's wrong to assume that a "sound" theory is one that's "not far off the mark". At least it's far more reasonable an assumption than what (E) has us assume: N = N' or "equipment worth the investment" = "equipment better than old".
(C) on the other hand, assumes that "succeed in selling" = "not fail to sell". Isn't that closer to "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories?