Miriam: A moral theory, like an overcoat, can be quite useful even if it is not useful in every possible situation. Being useful in a wide variety of common circumstances is all we need from a moral theory.
Speaker 1 Summary
Laurel concludes that modern moral theories have to be abandoned or reworked, because they don’t provide guidance in extreme. Extreme cases are the times when people most need guidance.
Speaker 2 Summary
Miriam asserts that moral theories can still be useful, even if not useful in all situations. They serve their purpose if they’re useful in a wide variety of common situations.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. They disagree about whether moral theories’ failure to help in extreme situations justifies abandoning or reworking them. Laurel think it does, but Miriam thinks it doesn’t.
A
it is preferable to develop a moral theory that provides solutions to all the moral dilemmas that could arise
Miriam doesn’t have an opinion. She describes what we need from a moral theory, but doesn’t describe whether it’d be better for a moral theory to provide solutions to all problems that could arise.
B
people abandoned earlier moral theories when they encountered dilemmas that those theories did not adequately address
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss whether people abandoned earlier theories or why people abandoned earlier theories.
C
a moral theory’s adequacy depends on its ability to provide guidance in extreme cases
This is a point of disagreement. Laurel thinks a moral theory’s adequacy does depend on its ability to guide in extreme cases. But Miriam believes it doesn’t. A moral theory just needs to provide guidance in the most common situations.
D
just as people need different overcoats in different climates, so too do they need different moral theories on different occasions
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss whether people ever need different moral theories during different situations.
E
a moral theory developed in the light of extreme cases is unlikely to provide adequate guidance in more usual cases
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss whether moral theories that apply in extreme cases are unlikely to provide guidance in more typical cases.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author rejects the paleobiologists’ belief that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. Since some dinosaurs lived in places where only warm-blooded animals could survive, the author implies that some dinosaurs must have been warm-blooded.
Identify Argument Part
It’s a premise. The author uses the claim that only warm-blooded animals could survive in those areas to prove that the dinosaurs that lived in those areas were not cold-blooded.
A
It is presented as a potential counterexample to the argument’s main conclusion.
The last sentence supports the conclusion, so it can’t be a counter-example to it.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the argument’s main conclusion.
This accurately describes the role of the last sentence. It’s a premise supporting the author’s conclusion.
C
It is presented as counterevidence to the paleobiologists’ assertion that dinosaurs lack turbinates.
The author never suggests that dinosaurs actually have turbinates. The claim that the author counters is the paleobiologists’ claim that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
D
It is the argument’s main conclusion.
The main conclusion is the claim that the paleobiologists are wrong. The last sentence supports that conclusion.
E
It is an intermediate conclusion for which the claim that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska is offered as support.
The claim that some dinosaurs lived in Australia and Alaska isn’t offered to help prove that only warm-blooded animals can live in freezing temperatures.