Context: Philosophers usually treat emotions as nonrational.
MC: But emotion is not nonrational: it only seems that way because language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion.
Context can also be viewed as a phenomenon and the MC as an explanation. (Why do philosophers treat...? Because language lacks...)
Major Premise: The words we use to refer to emotions name only very general kinds of inner experience excitement, calm, joy, and so on.
Minor Premise: Thus, for example, there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another.
"Thus, for example..." The example receives support (as indicated by "thus") but it also give support too (as examples generally do).
That specific instances illustrating a general claim (or principle) BOTH give and receive support to that general claim.
One can reason from general to specific and vice versa.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The philosopher argues that, contrary to others in his field, emotion is not nonrational. It only seems that way because language cannot convey emotion in its entirety. The words we use to describe certain feelings, such as joy, calm, etc., are very general. For example, there is language to describe how one feeling of “joy” differs from someone else’s experience of the same emotion.
Identify Argument Part
It is an example that the argument uses to support a claim (that the words we use to describe certain emotions are general) that supports the main conclusion.
A
It is an example of the phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain.
The statement is an example, but it is not the phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain. The argument seeks to explain why emotions are perceived as nonrational, not the lack of language itself.
B
It is the main conclusion of the argument.
It is not the main conclusion of the argument. This is an example that supports the main conclusion in the second sentence.
C
It is a specific instance illustrating a general claim, thereby indirectly supporting the conclusion.
The statement illustrates the general claim that language is inadequate for describing emotions in detail. This supports the conclusion that emotions are perceived as nonrational because of this inadequacy.
D
It is a concession to the view that the argument seeks to refute.
This is not a concession to the argument the author seeks to refute. This example supports the author’s hypothesis that refutes the other philosophers’ argument.
E
It is the explanation proposed for the phenomenon the argument seeks to explain.
This is not an explanation. The explanation is the author’s main conclusion.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The Anthropologist concludes that groups of early humans were likely motivated by the benefits of an agriculturist lifestyle when transitioning from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Why? Because the transition to agriculture from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle must have been traumatic due to increased incidence of disease, injury, and lack of a nutritious diet.
Identify Argument Part
The statement in the first sentence is a premise offered in support of the Anthropologist’s conclusion. It is also further supported by the next sentence, which provides some examples of traumatic events.
A
It is a premise for which another premise is offered as support.
The statement is a premise used as support for the Anthropologist’s main conclusion and is also supported by the premise contained in the second sentence.
B
It is background information that plays no logical role in the argument.
The statement does play a logical role in the argument. It is a premise used to support the Anthropologist’s main conclusion.
C
It is a premise for which no support is offered.
The statement is supported by other information in the stimulus.
D
It is the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
The statement is not the Anthropologist’s main conclusion.
E
It is a claim that the rest of the argument seeks to rebut.
The statement is not a claim the Anthropologist is rebutting.