Self-study
Agricultural scientist: Support Wild apples are considerably smaller than cultivated apples found in supermarkets. ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██████████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that apples were probably not cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago. This is based on the following:
Today, wild apples are much smaller than cultivated apples found in supermarkets.
In this region, apples of 5,000 years ago were the same size as wild apples native to the region.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that cultivated apples 5,000 years ago must have been larger than wild apples from that time. But this overlooks the possibility that wild apples were similar in size to cultivated apples from that time, even if today wild apples are smaller than cultivated apples.
20.
The agricultural scientist's argument is ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
fails to consider ████ ████ ██ █ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ██ █ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ████
The argument concerns only “this region.” Whether apples were cultivated in other regions does not affect the reasoning of the argument.
b
fails to consider ████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ █ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ████████████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ █ ████ ████
The author overlooks the fact that, 5,000 years ago, cultivated and wild apples might have been more similar in size compared to their relative sizes today. We cannot rely on their relative sizes today to conclude that the smaller apples of 5,000 years ago were not cultivated.
c
takes for granted ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ████████████
The argument concerns remains of apples in a particular region that are the same size wild apples. The existence of other apples sized in between wild/cultivated doesn’t weaken the argument. So the author doesn’t need to assume there are only two sizes for apples.
d
employs a premise ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███████
There is no premise that contradicts the conclusion. The conclusion is that apples probably weren’t cultivated 5,000 years ago in this region. None of the premises makes the conclusion impossible to be true.
e
uses a claim ████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████████████ ███ ████ ██████████
(E) describes circular reasoning. None of the premises assume the truth of the conclusion. The premises include comparison between sizes of apples today, and a claim about sizes of remains of certain apples. The conclusion is about whether those apples were cultivated.