Self-study
Tony: Few anarchists have ever performed violent actions. █████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ████████████
███████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████
Describe the Method of Reasoning: Counter-Position
There are two arguments in this stimulus: Tony's and Keisha's. The question stem directs us at Keisha's argument, but because Keisha is responding to Tony, it's important to first understand what Tony has to say.
Tony's conclusion is that the association between anarchism and violence is unwarranted. Why? Because there's only a small number of violent anarchists, whereas many more people adhering to other ideologies are violent. So Tony defends anarchists by comparing the number of violent anarchists to the number of violent adherents to other ideologies.
Keisha doesn't seem convinced: she concludes that the proportion of anarchists who are violent could be greater than the proportion of adherents to other ideologies who are violent. This is supported by her claim that there are relatively few anarchists, whereas other ideologies often have many more adherents.
Keisha is weaking Tony's argument by putting his support in context and pointing out the difference between numbers and proportions. Even if Tony's premise is true, and there are only a few violent anarchists, Keisha opens up the possibility that a special association with violence could be justified if that small number of anarchists represents a significant proportion of anarchists.
15.
Keisha responds to Tony's argument ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████
a
She shows that ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ███████████████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ████████████
Tony compares the absolute number of violent anarchists and the absolute number of violent adherents of other ideologies. Keisha points out that Tony’s conclusion is questionable because that small number of violent anarchists could still represent a significant proportion of all anarchists.
b
She attempts to █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████
The evidence Keisha offers is not incompatible with Tony’s evidence. Tony says that there are few violent anarchists, and Keisha says that there are few anarchists overall. Those claims are perfectly compatible.
c
She questions the ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ███████████
Keisha does not question the accuracy of Tony’s claims about the number of violent anarchists. Rather, Keisha raises another consideration, the proportion of anarchists who are violent, that adds context to Tony's claims.
d
She presents evidence ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███████
Keisha does not suggest that the two groups Tony compares—anarchists and adherents to other ideologies—have no qualities in common. She just points out that there are fewer anarchists, which is entirely compatible with the groups having some qualities in common.
e
She indicates that ████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████
Tony does not provide any criteria for determining who belongs to a certain group—he makes claims about anarchists and adherents to other ideologies without defining either category. Keisha also doesn't discuss the criteria that could be used to include people in either group.