Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Mary concludes that Jamal’s statements are absurd when taken together because he claims that she has the legal right to sell her business, but that she has no right to do so because employees will suffer.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Mary’s reasoning is vulnerable to criticism because she overlooks the possibility that Jamal is using two different senses of the word “right.” When he says she has the legal right to sell the business, he means it in a legal sense. But when he says she has "no right" to sell it, he’s referring to a moral right, suggesting that selling the business wouldn't be the right thing to do. Because of this, his argument isn’t actually contradictory or absurd.
A
overlooks the possibility that when Jamal claims that she has no right to sell the business, he simply means she has no right to do so at this time
Even if Jamal does mean that Mary has no moral right to sell the business at this time, it wouldn't weaken the claim that his statements taken together are absurd. He’s still claiming that she has the right to sell anytime, but no right to sell at this time.
B
overlooks the possibility that her employees also have rights related to the sale of the business
The argument is only addressing Mary’s rights. But even if her employees do have rights related to the sale of the business, it wouldn’t impact Mary’s conclusion that Jamal’s statements are absurd because they’re contradictory.
C
provides no evidence for the claim that she does have a right to sell the business
Mary actually does provide evidence to support the claim that she has a legal right to sell the business— the fact that she’s its legitimate owner.
D
overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds of right
If Jamal is referring to a legal right in one statement and a moral right in the other, then his statements are not actually absurd when taken together. Mary can have the legal right to sell even though selling is not the right thing to do.
E
attacks Jamal’s character rather than his argument
This the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Mary doesn’t make this mistake. She claims that Jamal’s statements are absurd when taken together, not that Jamal himself is absurd.
Commentator: If a political administration is both economically successful and successful at protecting individual liberties, then it is an overall success. Even an administration that fails to care for the environment may succeed overall if it protects individual liberties. So far, the present administration has not cared for the environment but has successfully protected individual liberties.
Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:
Notable Valid Inferences
If the present administration is economically successful, then it is an overall success.
A
The present administration is economically successful.
Could be false. Based on the information in the stimulus, there’s no reason to believe that the administration is economically successful or that it is not.
B
The present administration is not an overall success.
Could be false. The stimulus tells us that the present administration satisfies half the sufficient condition for overall success, and it does not tell us whether or not it satisfies the other half. If it is economically successful, then it’s an overall success and (B) is false.
C
If the present administration is economically successful, then it is an overall success.
Must be true. We know that the present administration has protected individual liberties, and (C) tells us that it’s also been economically successful. As shown below, these two conditions combine to form the sufficient condition for overall success.
D
If the present administration had been economically successful, it would have cared for the environment.
Could be false. In this question, caring for the environment is a bit of a red herring: it is not part of the sufficient condition or the necessary condition, and we can neither use it to draw a valid conclusion nor conclude anything about it.
E
If the present administration succeeds at environmental protection, then it will be an overall success.
Could be false. In this question, caring for or protecting the environment is a bit of a red herring: it is not part of the sufficient condition or the necessary condition, and we can neither use it to draw a valid conclusion nor conclude anything about it.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that large corporations’ actions to discourage alternative-energy projects have likely influenced the government’s decisions to curtail funding of alternative-energy projects. This is based on the fact that large corporations have made a point to discourage alternative-energy projects.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for the government’s decisions to curtail funding for the alternative-energy projects besides large corporations’ actions.
A
For the past two decades, most alternative-energy initiatives have received little or no government funding.
This doesn’t shed light on the cause of the lack of government funding. We already know that major alternative-energy intiatives have had government funding curtailed. The issue is whether this is due to large corporations’ actions.
B
The funding initially earmarked for a government project is always subject to change, given the mechanisms by which the political process operates.
But, is the decision to cut funding to these projects a result of corporations’ actions, or something else? (B) doesn’t help to eliminate other explanations or to affirm the author’s explanation.
C
The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.
This eliminates an alternate explanation that the government was simply cutting funding across the board. (C) establishes a closer connection between having funding cut and corporations’ discouragement.
D
Some projects encouraged by large corporations have seen their funding severely curtailed over the last five years.
The author never suggested that the government does whatever corporations want. Some projects encouraged by corporations may have had funding cut. That doesn’t impact whether other projects had funding cut because corporations discouraged those projects.
E
All large corporations have made it a point to discourage some forms of research.
We already know large corporations have discouraged alternative-energy projects. The issue is whether the government’s decision to cut funding to those projects results from the corporations’ actions. (E) doesn’t help affirm that explanation or eliminate other explanations.
Sklar: My objection to teaching chess to children is that it diverts mental activity from something with societal value, such as science, into something that has no societal value.
Speaker 1 Summary
Talbert claims that chess is good for children (and we can reasonably assume from this that we should teach children chess). Why? Because it teaches the children mental maturity. And how does it do that? By encouraging skills like foresight and logical thinking, and discouraging flaws like carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sklar’s argument supports the unstated conclusion that we should not spend time teaching chess to children. Why not? Because the mental resources that children spend on chess could instead be used on more socially valuable pursuits like science.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Talbert and Sklar disagree about whether we should teach children chess.
A
chess promotes mental maturity
Talbert agrees with this, but Sklar doesn’t express an opinion. Sklar doesn’t mention any of the benefits that chess may or may not have for children, and instead just focuses on the social value of chess compared to other pursuits.
B
many activities promote mental maturity just as well as chess does
Neither speaker states an opinion about this claim. Talbert doesn’t discuss activities other than chess at all. Sklar does talk about other activities, but only about their societal value, not their ability to promote mental maturity.
C
chess is socially valuable and science is not
Sklar disagrees with this, but Talbert doesn’t state an opinion. Talbert doesn’t mention social value at all, and also doesn’t mention science at all.
D
children should be taught to play chess
Talbert agrees with this and Sklar disagrees: this is their disagreement. Talbert focuses entirely on the value of chess, so it’s reasonable to assume that Talbert believes we should teach chess. Sklar’s implicit main conclusion is that chess wastes time and shouldn’t be taught.
E
children who neither play chess nor study science are mentally immature
Neither speaker makes this claim. Talbert focuses entirely on the benefits of chess, not on the outcomes for children who don’t play chess. Sklar, on the other hand, never talks about mental maturity.