Politician: Democracy requires that there be no restrictions on the ability of citizens to share their ideas freely, without fear of reprisal. Therefore the right to have private conversations, unmonitored by the government, is essential to democracy. For a government to monitor conversations on the Internet would thus be a setback for democracy.

Summarize Argument
The politician argues that it would harm democracy if a government were to monitor conversations. Why? Because for a democracy to work, people need to be able to freely share their ideas without worrying the government might take action against them. Unmonitored private conversations are essential to democracy.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text supports the second sentence, which in turn supports the conclusion. Why is the right to private, unmonitored conversations essential to democracy? Because democracy requires free expression of ideas.

A
It is a claim for which no support is provided, and which is used to support only the argument’s main conclusion.
There’s certainly no support provided for the referenced text, but it doesn’t support the main conclusion. Instead, it supports a sub-conclusion, which in turn supports the main conclusion.
B
It is a claim for which no support is provided, and which is used to support a claim that is itself used to support the argument’s main conclusion.
The referenced text is definitely unsupported, which makes it a premise. It supports the second sentence, which in turn supports the main conclusion about democracy being harmed when the government monitors conversations.
C
It is a claim for which support is provided, and which is in turn used to support the argument’s main conclusion.
There’s no support for this claim. Nor does it support the main conclusion. Instead, it’s support for a sub-conclusion.
D
It is the argument’s main conclusion and is inferred from two other statements in the argument, one of which is used to support the other.
The argument’s main conclusion is the last sentence. The referenced text certainly isn’t inferred from the sub-conclusion and main conclusion.
E
It is the argument’s main conclusion and is inferred from two other statements in the argument, neither of which is used to support the other.
The referenced text isn’t the main conclusion. It also isn’t inferred from anything. It’s support for the second sentence, which is a sub-conclusion.

15 comments

For a work to be rightly thought of as world literature, it must be received and interpreted within the writer’s own national tradition and within external national traditions. A work counts as being interpreted within a national tradition if authors from that tradition use the work in at least one of three ways: as a positive model for the development of their own tradition, as a negative case of a decadent tendency that must be consciously avoided, or as an image of radical otherness that prompts refinement of the home tradition.

Summary

For a work to be considered world literature, it must be received and interpreted by the writer’s own national tradition and by other national traditions. A work is interpreted by a national tradition if writers from that tradition use it in at least one of three ways: as a positive model for the development of their tradition, as a negative model to avoid in the development of their tradition, or as a way to refine the development of their tradition.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

A work can be a negative model in some contexts and a positive model in others and still be considered world literature.

In order to be interpreted by a national tradition, a work of literature must affect the development of that tradition in some way.

A
A work of literature cannot be well received within an external national tradition if it is not well received within the writer’s own national tradition.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t connect the the writer’s own national tradition with external national traditions. Perhaps a work can still be received well in an external tradition without being received well in the writer’s own tradition.

B
A work of world literature offers more to readers within external national traditions than it offers to readers within the writer’s national tradition.

Unsupported. The stimulus does not give any information about what a work of world literature offers to different audiences.

C
A work should not be thought of as world literature if it is more meaningful to readers from the writer’s national tradition than it is to readers from external national traditions.

Unsupported. Whether a work is more meaningful to one group or another has no effect on whether it should be thought of as world literature.

D
A work of world literature is always influenced by works outside of the writer’s national tradition.

Unsupported. For a work to be world literature, it must be received and interpreted by the writer’s own national tradition and by other national traditions. We aren’t told that it’s always influenced by other works outside of the writer’s national tradition.

E
A work is not part of world literature if it affects the development of only one national tradition.

Strongly supported. A work of world literature must be interpreted by the writer’s national tradition and other national traditions. Thus, it must affect the development of both traditions either as a positive model, a negative model, or a model of refinement.


39 comments

Historian: The revolutionary party has been accused of having many overambitious goals and of having caused great suffering. However, most of the party’s goals were quickly achieved and the party did not have enough power to cause the suffering the critics claim it caused. So it is clear that the party was not overambitious and caused no suffering.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the revolutionary party was not overambitious and caused NO suffering. This is based on the fact that most of the party’s goals were achieved quickly and that the party didn’t have enough power to cause GREAT suffering.

Identify and Describe Flaw
There are two key assumptions. First, the author assumes that achieving most goals quickly implies that there weren’t many overambitious goals. This overlooks the possibility that there were a lot of goals that the party still didn’t achieve. Second, the author assumes that not being able to cause GREAT suffering implies that the party caused NO suffering. This overlooks the possibility that the party still caused some suffering, even if it wasn’t great.

A
gives mutually inconsistent responses to the two criticisms
There’s nothing contradictory about claiming that the party achieved most goals and that it didn’t have enough power to cause great suffering. Both can be true.
B
fails to establish that the revolutionary party caused no suffering
The author’s premises establish that the party didn’t cause GREAT suffering. But this doesn’t establish what the conclusion asserts — that the party caused NO suffering.
C
fails to establish that any of the revolutionary party’s critics underestimated the party’s power
The argument didn’t need to establish anything about the critics of the revolutionary party. The critics’ claims are mentioned purely as context in the first sentence; the argument’s reasoning doesn’t rely on critics’ perceptions of the party.
D
provides no evidence that the revolutionary party’s goals were not overambitious
The author does provide some evidence that the goals were not overambitious — the party achievedmost of its goals quickly. This evidence doesn’t prove that the party was not overambitious, but it does constitute at least some evidence it wasn’t ambitious.
E
fails to consider other major criticisms of the revolutionary party
The argument didn’t need to consider other major criticisms. It focusd on two particular criticisms about being overambitious and causing great suffering and tried to rebut those points. But the argument doesn’t take a position on any other issues.

28 comments