Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Researcher hypothesizes that several chemical compounds, particularly isoflavones, and phytosterols, found in soybeans effectively protect humans from cancer. This is because isoflavones inhibit estrogen production, which is linked to certain cancers.
Notable Assumptions
The Researcher assumes that no other factors will outweigh the anti-cancer impacts of isoflavones and phytosterols.
The Researcher also assumes that the animal studies used to introduce a premise are applicable to humans.
The Researcher also assumes that the animal studies used to introduce a premise are applicable to humans.
A
The soybean derivatives used in most studies are the products of specialized processing techniques and are not yet widely available to consumers.
This does not impact the reasoning of the argument at all. The fact that soybean derivatives used in *most* of the studies have these qualities is wholly irrelevant.
B
While phytosterols, which occur in high concentrations in soybeans, have been shown to decrease cholesterol absorption in the body, new evidence suggests that this decrease is not large enough to reduce susceptibility to cancer.
This directly weakens the argument because it weakens the Researcher’s second premise. This casts doubt on the argument that these compounds are effective anticancer agents.
C
A study of people with high levels of blood cholesterol showed no significant reduction in cholesterol levels after switching to a soybean-rich diet.
This challenges the link between eating soybeans and lowering cholesterol levels, thereby reducing cancer risk.
D
Consumption of soybean products might lower blood cholesterol in animals, but a study of people whose major source of protein is soybeans rather than animal products showed blood cholesterol levels no lower than normal.
This weakens the argument because it calls out one of the Researcher’s key assumptions: that the animal study she relied on *was* applicable to humans.
E
Preliminary studies have not shown isoflavones to have a significant effect on estrogen levels in humans.
If this is true, it weakens the reasoning between the first premise and the main conclusion. If isoflavones do not reduce estrogen levels in humans as they do in animals, the argument for their role in cancer prevention is weakened.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Researcher hypothesizes that the details of frightening experiences tend to be better remembered than those of nonfrightening experiences. This is because the Researcher observed that increased adrenaline secretion (which occurs during frightening experiences) enhances the clarity of one’s memory in those moments.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that adrenaline secretion is one of (if not the primary) factors explaining why frightening experiences are more clearly remembered. The author also assumes that nonfighting experiences typically do not involve increased adrenaline levels.
A
Some experiences are so intense that an individual’s normal tendency to retain the details of them is reversed.
While this suggests that some intense (frightening) experiences may not be remembered clearly, it does not cast doubt on any of the reasoning between adrenaline and frightening experiences. That is what you need to weaken.
B
An individual will tend to remember most clearly those details of a situation that are relevant to the satisfaction of desires.
This is focused on *what* is remembered most clearly, not *why* it is remembered. That is the focus of this argument.
C
Highly pleasurable experiences are, like frightening experiences, accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline.
This weakens the argument because it showcases that experiences other than frightening ones are also accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline. This directly weakens the relationship between the premise and conclusion.
D
Frightening experiences make up only a small fraction of experiences in general.
This does not touch the reasoning in the argument. The frequency of frightening experiences has nothing to do with *why* they are remembered more clearly.
E
If an individual perceives a dangerous situation as nonfrightening, then the experience of that situation will not be accompanied by increased adrenaline secretions.
This discusses exceptions to the described phenomenon but does not challenge the claim that frightening experiences, when accompanied by adrenaline, are better remembered.