Summarize Argument
The author concludes that computers, rather than cardiologists, should interpret EKG data. This is because a computer outperformed a cardiologist on interpreting EKG data in a study.
Notable Assumptions
The author believes that a policy should be implemented based on an extremely limited study. She therefore assumes the sample size was adequate. The author also believes that since the computer program diagnosed a higher proportion of cases that turned out to be heart attacks, the program wasn’t making some error in other cases that would compromise its function. If the computer was identifying nearly every EKG reading as a heart attack, its value would be extremely limited.
A
Experts agreed that the cardiologist made few obvious mistakes in reading and interpreting the EKG data.
If the expert was doing an excellent job, then the computer program must’ve been doing fantastically well in order to be outperforming the expert. This supports the author’s argument.
B
The practice of medicine is as much an art as a science, and computer programs are not easily adapted to making subjective judgments.
The computer isn’t being asked to “practice medicine.” It’s being asked to read EKG data.
C
The cardiologist correctly diagnosed a significantly higher proportion of the cases in which no heart attack occurred than did the computer program.
The computer program was too liberal with its heart attack diagnoses. Thus, it may well be wrong in its diagnoses more often than the expert was.
D
In a considerable percentage of cases, EKG data alone are insufficient to enable either computer programs or cardiologists to make accurate diagnoses.
Let’s take those cases off the table. Now we have the computer versus the expert in all the other cases. We need to weaken the claim the computer would be better at diagnosing heart attacks in those cases.
E
The cardiologist in the study was unrepresentative of cardiologists in general with respect to skill and experience.
This is true: this cardiologist was an expert. We can imagine the average cardiologist would’ve performed even worse.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that first-year students with high levels of spending on recreation can reduce spending without increasing their anxiety or depression. This is based the fact that at a particular university, the first-year students reporting the most spending on recreation score the same level on anxiety/depression tests as those who report the lowest-levels of spending on recreation.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the students reported spending amounts reflect actual spending amounts. The author assumes that students who spend in between the highest and lowest amounts on recreation don’t have higher rates of depression/anxiety than the students with the highest spending. The author assumes that the first-year students at this university are representative of first-year students in general.
A
At other universities, first-year students reporting the highest levels of spending on recreation also show the same degree of anxiety and depression as do those reporting the lowest levels of such spending.
This strengthens by providing evidence that the results at the university in the stimulus aren’t unrepresentative.
B
Screening of first-year students at the university who report moderate levels of spending on recreation reveals that those students are less anxious and depressed than both those with the highest and those with the lowest levels of spending on recreation.
This strengthens by eliminating the possibility that moderate spending is associated with higher depression/anxiety. This supports the claim that students with high spending can decrease their spending without becoming more depressed/anxious.
C
Among adults between the ages of 40 and 60, increased levels of spending on recreation are strongly correlated with decreased levels of anxiety and depression.
If anything, this might undermine the argument by associating increased spending on recreation with decreased anxiety/depression. This would suggest reducing spending might lead to more anxiety/depression.
D
The screening instruments used by the psychiatrist are extremely accurate in revealing levels of anxiety and depression among university students.
This strengthens by affirming the reliability of the screening instruments. If they’re extremely accurate, they’re a good indication of actual depression/anxiety.
E
Several of the psychiatrist’s patients who are first-year students at the university have reduced their spending on recreation from very high levels to very low levels without increasing their anxiety or depression.
This strengthens by giving a few data points that align with the psychiatrist’s hypothesis.
Summary
The author concludes that the more history a person knows, the less likely that person will view history as the working out of moral themes. This is based on the following:
If one does not hold clear and unambiguous moral beliefs, then it’s unlikely one will see history as the working out of moral themes.
As one gains knowledge of history, one will tend to be less likely to morally judge human behaavior.
If one does not hold clear and unambiguous moral beliefs, then it’s unlikely one will see history as the working out of moral themes.
As one gains knowledge of history, one will tend to be less likely to morally judge human behaavior.
Missing Connection
We’re trying to get from “more history a person knows” to “less likely to see history as working out of moral themes.”
We have a premise that tells us “more history a person knows” leads to “less inclined to morally judge human behavior.” And we have a premise that tells us “not holding clear and unambiguous moral beliefs” leads to “less likely to see history as working out of moral themes.” So there’s a way to get from “more history a person knows” to “less likely to see history as working out of moral themes,” as long as we add the following to connect the two premises:
“less inclined to morally judge human behavior” implies “less likely to hold clear and unambiguous moral beliefs”
We have a premise that tells us “more history a person knows” leads to “less inclined to morally judge human behavior.” And we have a premise that tells us “not holding clear and unambiguous moral beliefs” leads to “less likely to see history as working out of moral themes.” So there’s a way to get from “more history a person knows” to “less likely to see history as working out of moral themes,” as long as we add the following to connect the two premises:
“less inclined to morally judge human behavior” implies “less likely to hold clear and unambiguous moral beliefs”
A
Historical events that fail to elicit moral disapproval are generally not considered to exemplify a moral theme.
Adding (A) to the argument doesn’t create a connection between “less inclined to morally judge human behavior” and “less likely to have clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.” So we still cannot get from “more history one knows” to “less likely to view history as the working out of moral themes.”
B
The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior, the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.
(B) allows us to chain the two premises together to form the following:
more history a person knows → less inclined to morally judge human behavior → not holding clear and unambiguous moral beliefs → less likely to see history as working out of moral themes
C
Only those who do not understand human history attribute moral significance to historical events.
The conclusion concerns what happens as one’s knowledge of history increases. But neither the conclusion nor premises involve the absolute category of “those who do not understand history.” So (C) does not establish that the more history one knows, the less likely one is to view history as the working out of moral themes.
D
The more clear and unambiguous one’s moral beliefs, the more likely one is to view history as the working out of moral themes.
Even if (D) were added to the premises, we still have no connection between “less inclined to morally judge human behavior” and “less likely to have clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.” So we still cannot get from “more history one knows” to “less likely to view history as the working out of moral themes.”
E
People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge.
The quality of being “less objective regarding a subject” has no connection to the concepts in the argument. With (E), we still have no connection between “less inclined to morally judge human behavior” and “less likely to have clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.” So we still cannot get from “more history one knows” to “less likely to view history as the working out of moral themes.”
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did surveyed students, when given a list of candidates, choose a university president candidate with no experience, even though they also said that they would prefer a university president with extensive experience?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains the students' contradictory responses, either by showing that none of the candidates had extensive experience, that the students didn’t know the candidates’ experience levels, or that the students had another preference that was more important than their preference for a candidate with extensive experience.
A
Because several of the candidates listed in the poll had extensive experience as university presidents, not all of the candidates could be differentiated on this basis alone.
This furthers the discrepancy. We know that the students preferred a candidate with extensive experience. So, if several of the candidates had extensive experience, why did the students choose a candidate with no experience?
B
Most of the candidates listed in the poll had extensive experience as university presidents.
Like (A), this furthers the discrepancy. We know that the students preferred a candidate with extensive experience. So, if most of the candidates had extensive experience, why did the students still choose a candidate with no experience?
C
Students taking the poll had fewer candidates to choose from than were currently being considered for the position.
We don’t know if this subset of candidates was composed of all inexperienced candidates or if it included many experienced candidates. If it included many experienced candidates, the question remains: why did the students choose a candidate with no experience?
D
Most of the students taking the poll did not know whether any of the leading candidates listed in the poll had ever served as a university president.
This helps explain the discrepancy in the students’ answers. Students indicated that they preferred a candidate with extensive experience. However, if most students didn’t know whether the candidates had experience, they were unable to choose a candidate based on this preference.
E
Often a person can be well suited to a position even though they have relatively little experience in such a position.
Even if the students’ preferred candidate seemed well-suited despite lacking experience, this doesn't explain the contradiction in their answers. The students said they preferred a candidate with extensive experience, so why did they choose someone without any experience?