The writing styles in works of high literary quality are not well suited to the avoidance of misinterpretation. For this reason, the writing in judicial decisions, which are primarily intended as determinations of law, is rarely of high literary quality. However, it is not uncommon to find writing of high literary quality in dissenting opinions, which are sometimes included in written decisions in cases heard by a panel of judges.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Judicial decisions are rarely of high literary quality, yet dissenting opinions occasionally are of high literary quality.

Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why dissenting opinions are written in a different way than are judicial decisions. High literary quality can lead to misinterpretations, so it makes sense why judicial decisions aren’t written that way. We need to know why dissenters sometimes write opinions of high literary quality despite the chance their words are misinterpreted.

A
It is not uncommon for more than one judge to have an influence on the way a dissenting opinion is written.
Are dissenting opinions influenced by multiple judges more likely to be of high literary quality? Who knows. This doesn’t tell us.
B
Unlike literary works, legal opinions rely heavily on the use of technical terminology.
This doesn’t resolve the discrepancy between judicial decisions and dissenting opinions. We need to know why the latter are sometimes of high literary quality.
C
The law is not to any great extent determined by dissenting opinions.
Since the law isn’t determined by dissenting opinions, authors of such opinions aren’t concerned about misinterpretation. They’re free to write however they like, which sometimes leads to high literary quality.
D
Judges spend much more time reading judicial decisions than reading works of high literary quality.
This doesn’t explain why dissenting opinions are sometimes of high literary quality. We don’t care what the judges usually read.
E
Judicial decisions issued by panels of judges are likely to be more widely read than are judicial decisions issued by a single judge who hears a case alone.
We’re interested in why dissenting opinions are sometimes of high literary quality. How widely-read judicial decisions are doesn’t clear anything up, since we don’t know the affect that being widely-read has on a judicial decision.

12 comments

Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. But they will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. Squirrel monkeys flourish in second-growth forest because of the plentiful supply of their favorite insects and fruit.

Summary

First sentence - “Without” is used just like “unless” here, so it means:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct

Second sentence - “If” introduces the sufficient condition:

Tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct

The last sentence tells us why squirrel monkeys “flourish” in second-growth forest. But it is not a conditional and does not connect to the conditionals in the first two sentences.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

We can connect the first two sentences, although you need to do the contrapositive of one or the other to see the connection:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved

OR

If tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct → there was intervention of conservationists

A
No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys’ favorite insects and fruit.

Not supported. We know that second growth forests have a lot of the favorite insects and fruit. This doesn’t imply that other habitats don’t have these things.

B
At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second-growth forest habitat for the monkeys.

If the monkeys survive, we know that second-growth forests have been preserved. And we know that this implies the conservationists intervened. But we don’t know exactly *how* the conservationists intervened. What they did might be unrelated to the forests. The forests were preserved, sure; but we don’t know that the conservationists helped to preserve the forests.

C
Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.

We know that without the intervention of conservationists, the monkeys will go extinct. But we have no idea whether lack of favorite fruits and insects will lead to extinction. The monkeys can “flourish” because of those fruits and insects; but this doesn’t imply that without those things, the monkeys will die.

D
If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will not become extinct.

This confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. We know that if conservationists DON’T intervene, the monkeys will go extinct. This does not imply that if conservationists DO intervene, that the monkeys will survive.

E
Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys.

(E) is supported by the connection between the first two sentences:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved


31 comments

Over 40,000 lead seals from the early Byzantine Empire remain today. Apart from the rare cases where the seal authenticated a document of special importance, most seals had served their purpose when the document was opened. Lead was not expensive, but it was not free: most lead seals would have been recast once they had served their purpose. Thus the number of early Byzantine documents sealed in such a fashion must have been many times the number of remaining lead seals.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the number of early Byzantine documents sealed using a lead seal must have been much more than 40,000. This is based on the fact that there are about 40,000 lead seals remaining today. In addition, most seals had served their purpose when the document was opened. And, once a seal had served its purpose, it would have been recast.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that many documents that were sealed by a lead seal were actually opened. (This overlooks the possibility that the 40,000 lead seals remaining happened to be fixed to the only documents that were written during early Byzantine times and those documents happened to never be opened.)

A
Most of the lead seals produced during the early Byzantine Empire were affixed to documents that were then opened during that period.
This confirms that a large portion of lead seals were on documents that were opened. This would lead to those lead seals being recast, which would suggest the remaining lead seals that were not recast are only a small proportion of the overall lead seals that were created.
B
Most of the lead seals produced during the early Byzantine Empire were affixed to documents that have since been destroyed.
We care about whether the documents were opened, because that would lead to seals being recast. Whether the documents were destroyed doesn’t tell us whether the documents were opened.
C
The amount of lead available for seals in the early Byzantine Empire was much greater than the amount of lead that remains in the seals today.
This tells us there was a lot of lead available for seals in the early Byzantine Empire compared to the lead remaining today. But were many more seals than what remain today actually created during the early Byzantine Empire? (C) doesn’t suggest many more seals were created.
D
During the time of the early Byzantine Empire there were at most 40,000 documents of enough importance to prevent the removing and recycling of the seal.
Placing a limit on the number of documents that would have prevented recycling of the seal doesn’t support the author’s conclusion. In fact, if it were possible for 1 million documents that had seals that wouldn’t have been recycled, that would support the author’s conclusion.
E
During the time of the early Byzantine Empire there were fewer than 40,000 seals affixed to documents at any given time.
The number of seals that were used simultaneously has no clear impact. The issue is the total number of documents that were sealed during the early Byzantine period; whether they were sealed at a given point in time isn’t relevant.

64 comments

Farmer: In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides. Because insects’ resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use, farmers have to use greater and greater amounts of costly insecticides to control insect pests.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Using insecticides over a long period is more harmful to farmers than helpful. As farmers use insecticides, insects gradually develop resistance, so farmers have to use larger and more costly amounts to keep controlling pests, making the practice less productive in the long run.

Identify Argument Part
The stimulus text refers to an intermediary conclusion, also called a “subsidiary conclusion” or “major premise.” The claim that “insects' resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use," supports the stimulus text because it explains why farmers must use larger amounts of insecticides to control pests. The stimulus text supports the main conclusion by showing why it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides in the long run—because, over time, farmers need more expensive insecticides to achieve the same results.

A
It is the argument’s main conclusion, but not its only conclusion.
The stimulus text is not the argument’s main conclusion. It is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion: “In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is not productive.
B
It is a claim for which a causal explanation is provided and which itself is used as direct support for the argument’s only conclusion.
This labels the stimulus text as a sub-conclusion. The claim “insects’ resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use” is a causal explanation (cause: insecticide; effect: greater resistance), supporting the stimulus text, which—in turn—supports the main conclusion.
C
It is the argument’s only conclusion.
The stimulus text is not the argument’s only conclusion. It is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion: “In the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.
D
It is a claim that is used as direct support for an intermediary conclusion, which in turn is used as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
The stimulus text doesn’t support an intermediary conclusion. It supports the main conclusion that “in the long run, it is counterproductive for farmers to use insecticides,” by explaining why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.
E
It identifies a phenomenon for which the argument’s main conclusion offers a causal explanation.
This incorrectly labels the stimulus text as context. The main conclusion does not explain the stimulus text. Instead, the stimulus text explains the main conclusion by showing why long-term pesticide use is unproductive.

29 comments