TV talk show host: Well, if there is such a decline, it’s not because of TV talk shows: we simply show people what they want to see. What can be wrong with letting the viewers decide? Furthermore, if restrictions were put on my show, that would amount to censorship, which is wrong.
Speaker 1 Summary
The moralist concludes that TV talk shows are contributing to moral decline. This is because the shows portray the least moral people, which makes viewers think being immoral is normal and that there’s something wrong with being morally upstanding.
Speaker 2 Summary
The host’s implicit conclusion is that there’s nothing wrong with what her TV talk show is doing. She asserts that any moral decline, if it exists, isn’t caused by TV talk shows. She also asserts that there’s nothing wrong with letting viewers decide what they want see. Additionally, she claims that any restrictions on her show would be censorship, and therefore wrong.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether TV shows are a cause of moral decline. The moralist thinks they are, and the host thinks they’re not.
A
TV talk shows should be censored
The moralist doesn’t express an opinion. Although the moralist thinks TV talk shows cause moral decline, that doesn’t mean the moralist thinks anything should be done about it. We just don’t know his opinion.
B
people’s moral standards have changed
The host doesn’t express an opinion. She says that if there’s a moral decline, TV talk shows aren’t a cause of it. She doesn’t say whether there actually is a moral decline or moral change.
C
TV talk shows influence people’s conception of what is the norm
Not a point of disagreement. The host doesn’t comment on whether TV talk shows influence the viewers. Although she does say that shows simply portray what people want to see, that doesn’t mean the host thinks the shows have no impact on viewers’ conception of what’s normal.
D
TV talk shows, by presenting immoral guests, are causing a moral decline
This is a point of disagreement. The moralist thinks TV talk shows do cause a moral decline by presenting immoral guests. The host does not think TV talk shows cause a moral decline.
E
it is wrong not to let the viewers decide what they want to see
The moralist expresses no opinion. Although she states that TV talk shows are causing a moral decline, that doesn’t tell us what she thinks about restricting what viewers can watch. Maybe she’s opposed to putting restrictions on shows, just like the host is.
Summarize Argument
The doctor thinks that the mere claim that some treatment is better than no treatment is not enough of a reason to support using a certain therapy to treat an illness. To support this, the doctor tells us that the therapy is expensive and complicated. This introduces additional factors that might make the therapy not worth it, even if the alternative is no treatment at all.
Identify Conclusion
The doctor’s conclusion is that using the therapy “cannot be adequately supported” just because it represents some treatment rather than no treatment at all.
A
The therapy is more effective than no treatment at all for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. The doctor never actually mentions whether the therapy is effective or not, and nothing in the argument would support an inference that it’s effective.
B
The therapy is more effective than other forms of treatment for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. Like (C), the doctor does not discuss any other possible treatments, so cannot compare them to the therapy that is discussed.
C
The therapy is more expensive and complicated than other forms of treatment for the illness.
This is not stated in the argument. Like (B), the doctor does not discuss any other possible treatments, so cannot compare them to the therapy that is discussed.
D
The therapy should not be used to treat the illness unless it is either effective or inexpensive.
This is not stated in the argument. The doctor doesn’t make any recommendations about when the therapy “should” or “should not” be used, just says that a certain claim isn’t sufficient to justify its use.
E
The therapy’s possible effectiveness in treating the illness is not sufficient justification for using it.
This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The doctor’s entire goal is to support this claim, that just because the therapy is some treatment rather than no treatment, that isn’t enough to justify its use.