Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that today, more than in the past, publishers are even more interested in making money than in publishing books demonstrating intrinsic merit. This is because there’s been a decline in the number of books of intrinsic merit that are published.
Notable Assumptions
There’s no other explanation for the decline in the number of books of intrinsic merit being published aside from an increase in the publishers’ interest in making money.
A
Book publishers have always been very interested in making money.
The author never denied that publishers were very interested in making money in the past. The author’s point is just that their desire for money has increased.
B
There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years.
This provides an alternate explanation for the decline in publication of books of intrinsic merits. If there’s been a decline in the quality of books written, that could reasonably mean there are fewer books of intrinsic merit available for publication.
C
In the past, often books of intrinsic value would unexpectedly make a sizable profit.
If the profits were “unexpected,” the publishers didn’t know which books of intrinsic merit would lead to profits. So, we can’t read (C) as suggesting that the past publication of books of intrinsic merit was due to a desire to make profit.
D
There have always been authors unwilling to be published unless a profit is guaranteed.
This answer doesn’t suggest any reason to think there’s been an increase in the number of authors unwilling to publish. So, this doesn’t explain a decrease in the number of books of intrinsic merit being published.
E
In recent years, profits in the book publishing industry have been declining.
This doesn’t provide an alternate explanation for a decline in the publication of books of intrinsic merit. If anything, it could support the author’s theory by suggesting that declining profits might have lead publishers to become more competitve and more concerned about money.
Summarize Argument
The author tells us that what people say about politics often contradicts their political behavior. The argument defines these concepts: what people say is that they want less government intervention, but what they do is vote out inactive politicians. The author tells us that what politicians do is pass laws that intervene in voters’ lives. We then get a sub-conclusion: “voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent,” meaning that people vote for active politicians who interfere with their lives, which they don’t like. This all supports the claim that people’s political talk and behavior differ.
Identify Argument Part
The claim that people tend not to reelect inactive politicians is a factual premise that supports a sub-conclusion (that voters reelect politicians they resent), which in turn supports the main conclusion.
A
It describes a phenomenon for which the argument’s conclusion is offered as an explanation.
The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not explained by anything else in the argument. It’s just stated as a stand-alone factual claim.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.
This is an accurate description of the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians. The claim helps to support the idea that voters reelect politicians they resent, which is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion that political talk and behavior differ.
C
It is offered as an example of how a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement interferes with voters’ lives.
The author never offers an example of how politicians’ main activity is to pass laws that interfere with people’s lives. Also, the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is a distinct factual statement from the interference claim.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that people complain about government intervention in their lives.
The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not based on the claim that people complain about government intervention. They’re two totally separate statements.
E
It is cited as evidence that people’s behavior never matches their political beliefs.
The author does not claim that people’s political behavior never matches their beliefs, only that it sometimes doesn’t.
Summarize Argument
The newspaper executive concludes that the newspaper is justified in paying its reporters a far-below-average salary. Why? Because the lower pay is compensated by the training the reporters get on the job.
Notable Assumptions
The executive assumes that the training reporters receive while working for the newspaper in question is substantially higher in quality than the training they would receive at a higher-paying competitor. Otherwise, the training couldn’t justify the low salary.
The executive also assumes that the newspaper’s reporters are generally inexperienced enough to benefit from additional training, or that their pay increases after they gain experience.
The executive also assumes that the newspaper’s reporters are generally inexperienced enough to benefit from additional training, or that their pay increases after they gain experience.
A
Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principal competitors.
This does not weaken the argument. If anything, it strengthens by affirming the executive’s assumption that the pay shortfall is limited to reporters who benefit from additional training.
B
Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.
This weakens the argument by indicating that most of the newspaper’s reporters do not benefit from additional training. That would mean they just get paid less without receiving any benefit in return—in other words, the pay gap would not be justified.
C
The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.
This does not weaken the argument. The circulation of the newspaper has nothing to do with whether or not the newspaper is justified in paying reporters less. Like (E), this claim is just irrelevant.
D
The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors.
This does not weaken the argument. Having a different union has no bearing on whether the pay difference is justified: maybe the union is weak and failed to negotiate a good deal, or maybe getting more training is actually a great bargain for reporters. We just don’t know.
E
The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.
This does not weaken the argument—like (C), it’s just irrelevant. Where the newspapers readers are located has nothing to do with the executive’s argument about lower pay for reporters being justified.
Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants—the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before—demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales.
Summarize Argument
The account concludes that the desirability of the company’s meals has decreased. Her evidence is that a certain group of restaurants—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—shows that fewer overall meals are selling.
Notable Assumptions
The accountant assumes that a decrease in sales means that the company’s meals must be less desirable than before. This means that she believes desirability is the only factor that contributes to sales. The accountant also assumes that what’s true of the restaurants in question—those that permit a year-by-year comparison—is generally true of the company’s restaurants.
A
The company’s restaurants last year dropped from their menus most of the new dishes that had been introduced the year before.
We don’t know whether these new dishes were desirable or not. Even if we did know, it wouldn’t weaken the accountant’s argument.
B
Prior to last year there was an overall downward trend in the company’s sales.
We need to know about what happened last year. The years before don’t matter to the accountant’s argument.
C
Those of the company’s restaurants that did increase their sales last year did not offer large discounts on prices to attract customers.
Even if price discounts were attracting customers, there could be some other factor aside from desirability causing the increase in sales. We need to attack the connecting between desirability and declining sales.
D
Sales of the company’s most expensive meal contributed little to the overall two-year sales increase.
We’re not interested in specific meals. We need to know if the restaurants in question are representative of the company’s restaurants in general, and if we can draw a conclusion about desirability from those restaurants.
E
Most of the company’s restaurants that were in operation throughout both last year and the year before are located in areas where residents experienced a severe overall decline in income last year.
The restaurants in question aren’t necessarily a representative example of the company’s restaurants at large. These restaurants are in areas that experienced an economic downtown, which suggests the issue was personal finance rather than desirability.