Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The position that criminals should be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes but that repeat offenders should receive harsher sentences is flawed. It wrongly assumes that past misdeeds are relevant to the seriousness of an offense. This introduces a vague standard that would make almost every other consideration relevant, making it impossible to apply this proportional principle.
Identify Argument Part
This is a undesirable consequence of believing the argument that the author is refuting.
A
It is a statement the argument provides grounds to accept and from which the overall conclusion is inferred.
The statement is not a premise. It does not support any other claim in the stimulus. It is an undesirable consequence that would result from believing the argument that the author rejects.
B
It is a statement inferred from a position the argument seeks to defend.
The author does not want to defend this statement. The author strongly disagrees with this statement.
C
It is the overall conclusion in favor of which the argument offers evidence.
This is not the main conclusion of the argument. The author does not believe in the truth of this statement, so it cannot be the main conclusion.
D
It is an allegedly untenable consequence of a view rejected in the argument’s overall conclusion.
This is an accurate description of the statement. The author argues that considering remote actions (an untenable consequence) is a result of the rejected view that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments.
E
It is a premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion of the argument.
This statement is not a premise and there is no sub-conclusion for it to support.
Summary
Film historians find it difficult to determine how audience members typically respond to films from the early twentieth century. Why? Because box office figures only indicate a film’s financial success or failure, they do not indicate what audiences found funny, frightening, or moving. Newspaper and magazine reviews of films also provide little insight.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Film historians believe that newspaper and magazine reviews of films do not reveal how an audience member would typically respond to a film.
A
Newspaper and magazine reviews of films are usually written in advance of a film’s general release.
We don’t know when newspaper or magazine reviews of films were written. We only know that film historians believe these sources do not provide much insight into audience members’ reactions.
B
Typical audience members’ responses to films from the latter part of the twentieth century are easy to determine.
We don’t know whether responses to films from the later twentieth century are easy to determine. The argument is limited to films from the early twentieth century.
C
The box office success of a film does not depend on its viewers finding it funny, frightening, or moving.
We don’t know what factors would cause a film’s success or failure at the box office. We only know that box office figures do not reflect how audiences typically responded to a given film.
D
Film historians do not believe that film reviews in newspapers and magazines reveal typical film audience members’ views.
Film historians must believe that newspaper and magazine reviews do not reveal typical film audience members’ views. In the stimulus, we are told that the historians find that these sources fail to provide much insight.
E
Films from the early part of the twentieth century were not usually reviewed in newspapers or magazines.
We don’t know whether early twentieth century films were usually reviewed in newspapers or magazines. We don’t even know if these films were usually reviewed at all.
Summary
Jurors often do not understand the technical information provided by expert witnesses. Although these expert witnesses may make conflicting claims, both appear confident, leaving juries unable to assess how reliable their testimonies are.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Juries may be swayed by factors other than reliability in a trial with expert testimony.
A
There should be limits placed on how much technical information can be considered by both sides in preparing a legal case.
This is too strong. The stimulus does not advocate for any limits to be placed on technical information. It purely focuses on jurors’ ability to understand it.
B
Jury decisions in cases involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by the reliability of those testimonies.
The stimulus argues that jurors often cannot assess the reliability of expert witness testimonies. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that decisions involving expert witness testimonies are not always determined by their reliability.
C
Jurors who understand the technical information presented in a case can usually assess its legal implications accurately.
The stimulus does not explain how jurors utilize accurately understood technical information. While it seems plausible, this is too much of an assumption.
D
Jury members should generally be selected on the basis of their technical expertise.
The stimulus does not argue for any change in how jurors should be selected. This requires many assumptions to be correct.
E
Expert witnesses who testify on opposite sides in legal cases are likely to agree in their evaluations of technical claims.
This is anti-supported. The stimulus says that expert witnesses on opposite sides make conflicting claims.
Summarize Argument
The author states that there’s no point debating the truth of the law of noncontradiction, since a productive debate would require some agreement among the participants on basic principles. But since those common principles would be even less certain than the law of noncontradiction, it would be impossible to defend the law of noncontradiction using those principles.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the value of debating the law of noncontradiction: “It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.”
A
It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.
The author concludes that it’s pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction since a debate couldn’t be productive. The premises simply explain why this would be pointless.
B
Statements that contradict each other cannot both be true.
This is context about the law of noncontradiction. The rest of the author’s argument doesn’t support this statement.
C
The participants in a productive debate must hold at least some basic principles in common.
This is a premise that the author uses to demonstrate why debate would be pointless. Since the basic principles would be less certain than the law itself, no productive debate could ensue.
D
The law of noncontradiction is a principle that the participants in a productive debate must hold in common.
This doesn’t show up in the argument, and therefore can’t be the conclusion. This is a generalization about the law of noncontradiction that the author doesn’t make.
E
Any principles that could be used to defend the law of noncontradiction are less certain than it is.
This is a premise used to demonstrate the pointlessness of a debate about the truth of the law of noncontradiction. Since participants couldn’t adequately defend the principle with other shared principles, debate would be fruitless.