Self-study
Helen: Reading a book is the intellectual equivalent of investing money: you're investing time, thereby foregoing other ways of spending that time, in the hope that what you learn will later afford you more opportunities than you'd get by spending the time doing something other than reading that book.
██████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ █ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Randi concludes that reading books is only an intellectual investment if those books are vocational. This qualifies Helen’s general claim that reading a book in hopes that it will lead to gains later on makes reading similar to investing money. To support this qualification, Randi says that reading fiction is a waste of time, comparable to watching sitcoms.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Randi argues that Helen’s analogy cannot be accurately drawn between two kinds of action, because not all the instances of one action are analogous to the other action. By claiming that reading fiction is analogous to watching a sitcom instead of to financial investment, Randi undermines the strength of Helen’s general analogy between book-reading and investment.
10.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███████
a
questioning how the ████████ █████ ████ ███ █ █████ ███ ████████
Randi does not question Helen’s evidence-gathering, only her theoretical reasoning. In fact, neither Helen nor Randi really presents gathered evidence at all.
b
disputing the scope ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███████
By presenting an analogy between reading fiction and watching sitcoms, Randi claims that only reading certain (vocational) books can be compared to investing. This is how Randi disputes the scope of Helen’s analogy between reading and investing.
c
arguing that Helen's █████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████████
Randi does not argue that Helen’s reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion, only that Helen’s reasoning is flawed because Helen’s analogy is too broad.
d
drawing an analogy ██ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ █████
Randi does not draw an analogy to an example presented by Helen. Randi only analogizes to a new example: watching sitcoms.
e
denying the relevance ██ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ █████
Randi does not deny the relevance of any part of Helen’s argument, just claims that its scope is too general.