Theoretically, analog systems are superior to digital systems. A signal in a pure analog system can be infinitely detailed, while digital systems cannot produce signals that are more precise than their digital units. With this theoretical advantage there is a practical disadvantage, however. Since there is no limit on the potential detail of the signal, the duplication of an analog representation allows tiny variations from the original, which are errors. These errors tend to accumulate as signals are duplicated, until this “noise” obliterates the information embodied in the original signal.

Summary
In theory, analog systems are better than digital systems. This is because analog signals can be infinitely detailed, whereas digital signals cannot, since they can’t be more precise than their digital units. But there’s an associated disadvantage of analog systems. Since there’s no limit to the level of detail in analog signals, duplication of analog signals allows room for variations from the original (called errors), which tend to build up as the analog signal is further duplicated. At some point, the number of errors in an analog signal makes it impossible to understand the information contained in the original signal.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
When duplicated, digital signals allow for less variation than analog signals allow.
Digital systems may be better for signals that must be duplicated many times.

A
Many ideas that work well in theory do not work well in practice.
Unsupported. Analog systems are at a disadvantage when signals have to be copied many times. That doesn’t imply that analog systems don’t work well in practice.
B
Analog representation of information is impractical because we do not need infinitely detailed information.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that we don’t need infinitely detailed information. Maybe we do, and it would be better for us if there were a way to achieve such infinite detail.
C
Digital systems are the best information systems because error cannot occur in the emission of digital signals.
Unsupported. Although digital systems are not as prone to error in duplication as are analog systems, that doesn’t imply that there are never any errors associated with emission of digital signals.
D
Analog systems are inferior to digital systems for most practical purposes.
Unsupported. Although analog systems are worse for purposes that involve duplicating a signal many times, that doesn’t imply they’re worse for “most” practical purposes. Maybe most practical purposes don’t involve numerous copies.
E
Digital systems are preferable to analog systems when the signal must be reproduced many times.
Strongly supported. We’re told that analog systems lead to a build-up of errors in the signal when the signal is copied many times. Digital system don’t have this problem to the same extent. So, digital systems are preferable when we need the signal to be copied many times.

6 comments

Ethicist: Both ASA and TPA are clot-dissolving agents. Recent studies show that the more expensive agent, TPA, would save at most two more lives than would ASA out of every 50 cardiac patients to whom they are postoperatively administered. However, since the relatives of the patients who die simply because they were given the less expensive medicine would be particularly grieved, the financial saving involved in using ASA over TPA must also be weighed against such considerations.

Summarize Argument
The ethicist believes that, in the choice between two medicines, there are more considerations at play than just the cost vs. the effectiveness of each medicine. In support, we are told that letting a patient die just because the less expensive medicine was used would cause more grief to that patient’s family members. This is one example of the additional considerations that, according to the ethicist, should inform the choice of medicine.

Identify Conclusion
The ethicist’s conclusion is that the decision of which medicine to use is not simply about cost vs. lives saved; it “must also be weighed against such considerations” as the grief experienced by patients’ families.

A
ASA should never be given to postoperative cardiac patients in place of TPA.
This is not stated in the argument. The ethicist never makes an absolute claim about which medicine should be used over the other, the argument is just about what factors warrant consideration.
B
TPA is a slightly more effective clot-dissolving agent than ASA.
Like (D), this can be inferred from the facts stated, but it’s context for the argument rather than being part of the argument itself. The ethicist’s focus is on including considerations beyond cost vs. effectiveness, and this claim isn’t part of that.
C
The extra expense of TPA cannot be weighed simply against the few additional lives saved.
This accurately captures the main conclusion. The ethicist says we need to weigh the cost of this type of medicine against more factors than just effectiveness, and the example of grief is used to support that.
D
ASA is a less expensive clot-dissolving agent than TPA.
Like (B), this is part of the argument’s context, not part of the argument. The argument is about considering more factors than just cost vs. effectiveness, the discussion of cost just sets the stage for that conversation.
E
Relatives of a patient who has died grieve more if the patient received ASA rather than TPA.
This statement in the argument isn’t offered any support, it’s just stated as a fact. Furthermore, it’s used as an example to support the conclusion about taking more factors into consideration when deciding on a medicine. That makes this a premise, not the conclusion.

4 comments

Currently, no satellite orbiting Earth is at significant risk of colliding with other satellites or satellite fragments, but the risk of such a collision is likely to increase dramatically in the future. After all, once such a collision occurs, it will probably produce thousands of satellite fragments, each large enough to shatter other satellites. The resulting collisions will produce many more fragments, and so on, causing the space around Earth to become quite heavily cluttered with dangerous debris.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the risk of a collision between satellites is likely to increase in the future. This is because once a collision occurs, it will produce satellite fragments, and these fragments will lead to other collisions with satellites and produce more fragments. Eventually, the area around Earth will be cluttered with these satellite fragments. This is why the risk of a satellite colliding with another satellite or satellite fragment will go up in the future.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the conclusion of the argument.

A
It is an unsupported claim that is used to provide support for the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text has support, because it’s a conclusion.
B
It is an unsupported claim that is used to support another claim that in turn supports the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text has support, because it’s a conclusion.
C
It is a claim for which the argument provides some support, and which in turn is used to support the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced claim is the conclusion of the argument. It doesn’t support any other claim.
D
It is a claim that serves as the argument’s conclusion.
This accurately describes the role of the referenced text. It’s a conclusion supported by the author’s prediction about the increased number of satellite fragments in the future.
E
It is a claim that provides nonessential background information for the argument’s conclusion.
The referenced text is the conclusion of the argument. It’s not just background information.

16 comments