Priscilla: That futuristic science fiction writers more skillfully envisage radically new technologies than new social arrangements shows how writers’ imaginations are constrained by current realities. Because of this limitation, the most effective social criticism results from faithfully presenting the current social realities for critical examination, as happens in conventional fiction.
Speaker 1 Summary
Lutsina concludes that futuristic sci-fi has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism than conventional fiction. This is because futuristic sci-fi writers can write about new social arrangements, since they don’t have to represent current social realities.
Speaker 2 Summary
Priscilla concludes that the most effective social criticism results from accurately presenting current social realities, as conventional fiction does. This view is based on the claim that futuristic sci-fi writers are better at imagining new technologies than they are at imagining new social realities. This shows that writers’ imaginations are constrained by current realities.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether sci-fi or conventional fiction are the best at social criticism.
A
some science fiction writers have succeeded in envisaging convincing, radically new social arrangements
Neither expresses an opinion. Lutsina only speaks about potential effectiveness, not about actual successes in writing social criticism. Priscilla doesn’t say anything about successful sci-fi writers.
B
writers of conventional fiction are more skillful than are writers of futuristic science fiction
Neither expresses an opinion. Lutsina doesn’t discuss skill. Priscilla refers to skill at imagining technology and social arrangements, but doesn’t refer to writing skill. Neither compares writing skill among sci-fi and conventional writers.
C
futuristic science fiction has more promise as a source of social criticism than does conventional fiction
This is a point of disagreement. Lutsina thinks sci-fi does hold more promise. Priscilla thinks the most effective social criticism happens in conventional fiction (and therefore not in sci-fi).
D
envisaging radically new technologies rather than radically new social arrangements is a shortcoming of futuristic science fiction
Lutsina doesn’t express an opinion about this. She refers only to envisaging new social arrangements, but says nothing about new technologies.
E
criticism of current social arrangements is not effective when those arrangements are contrasted with radically different ones
Neither has an opinion. To Lutsina, imagining new arrangements can lead to better criticism, but that doesn’t mean anything is required to be effective. To Priscilla, current arrangements are important, but that doesn’t mean comparisons to other arrangements are required.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that our club will almost certainly be city champions this year. This is based on the following:
Premise: Our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city.
Sub-conclusion: We will have the best team in the city.
Premise: The best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the championship.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author commits the part-to-whole fallacy in assuming that because the club has the best volleyplayers, the team will be the best.
The author also assumes that being the team with the best chance of winning the championship implies that the chance is near certainty. This overlooks that the team’s chance of winning could still be very low, even if that chance is better than the chances of each other team.
A
presumes, without presenting relevant evidence, that an entity can be distinguished as the best only on the basis of competition
The author does not assume that the “best” can be determined only based on competition. Notice that the premise says certain players are the “best,” but doesn’t say we had to see them in competition to make this determination.
B
predicts the success of an entity on the basis of features that are not relevant to the quality of that entity
Having the best players on your team is certainly relevant to the quality of the team. Although it doesn’t guarantee that the team will be the best, that doesn’t mean this feature is irrelevant.
C
predicts the outcome of a competition merely on the basis of a comparison between the parties in that competition
There’s nothing flawed about predicting an outcome based on comparing the parties in that competition. Although the author reaches his prediction in a flawed way, that doesn’t mean the act of predicting based on a comparison is flawed.
D
presumes, without providing warrant, that if an entity is the best among its competitors, then each individual part of that entity must also be the best
One of the premises asserts that the club recruited the best players (individual parts of the team). This is a fact we accept as true. So the author doesn’t assume that these players are the best. The author uses this fact to conclude that the team is the best.
E
concludes that because an event is the most likely of a set of possible events, that event is more likely to occur than not
(E) captures the author’s assumption that because the team has the best chance of winning, it will almost certainly win. The author overlooks that the team’s chance of winning might still be under 50%, even if that chance is higher than the chance of each other team winning.