Self-study
Support Taste buds were the primary tool early humans used for testing foods. ████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ███████████ █████ ████ ██████████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ ██████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the fact people can distinguish between sour/bitter/sweet/salty is completely explained by the use of taste to test the healthfulness of foods. This is based on the fact that early humans used taste buds to test foods for healthfulness.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that there’s no other additional explanation for why humans can distinguish between sour/bitter/sweet/salty. The premises establish that testing for healthfulness is one of the reasons for this ability, but that doesn’t guarantee there aren’t additional reasons.
5.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
takes a necessary █████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████████
The argument doesn’t present any necessary conditions for the truth of the conclusion. The premises tell us specific ways in which taste can help humans stay healthy, but these specific ways aren’t necessary for the conclusion to be true.
b
fails to consider ████ ████ ██████ █████████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██████
This possibility doesn’t affect the argument. Whether people “associate” foods more with smells doesn’t reveal anything about the purpose of the ability to distinguish different tastes.
c
fails to consider ████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██████
This possibility doesn’t weaken the argument. Foods might change taste after being cooked, and that might reveal something about the healthfulness of the food after being cooked.
d
fails to consider ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ █ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ██████
The argument doesn’t make any assumptions about the range of foods eaten by humans. The argument is simply about the purpose of distinguishing tastes. We know early humans could distinguish between certain tastes; the range of their diet doesn’t affect this.
e
takes what might ██ ████ █ ███████ ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ███████████
Taste helping to detect healthfulness of foods is a partial explanation of human’s ability to distinguish tastes. But the author assumes it’s a complete explanation. This overlooks the possibility there could be other reasons humans can distinguish tastes.