Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The business owner argues that the overall number of jobs in the region would decrease by allowing coal mining despite some new jobs being created. This is because many local businesses depend on the region's beauty, and the presence of coal mining would force most of them to close.
Identify Argument Part
This claim is a premise that supports an intermediate conclusion which supports the main conclusion. The fact that many local businesses depend on natural beauty supports the claim that coal mining would cause them to close. This in turn, supports the main conclusion that more jobs would be lost than gained.
A
It is given as direct evidence for a statement that is used to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
The claim supports the following clause that the coal mining would cause many of these local businesses to close, which in turn supports the main conclusion.
B
It is a premise that is offered as direct support for the overall conclusion of the argument.
This claim does not directly support the main conclusion. The fact that many businesses depend on the region’s natural beauty only supports the following clause.
C
It is an intermediate conclusion offered as direct support for the argument’s main conclusion.
This is not an intermediate conclusion. It does not receive support, it gives it.
D
It is the overall conclusion drawn in the argument.
This is not the overall conclusion. It does not receive support.
E
It is a hypothesis for which evidence is explicitly offered, but it is not itself intended to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
This statement is not a hypothesis, and it *is* intended to support the argument’s overall conclusion.
Elsa: If people hold radically different opinions, public art should emphasize that. No art form can do the impossible, which is what you are asking for.
Speaker 1 Summary
Laurie concludes that contemporary public art has failed to achieve its purpose. Its purpose in a democracy is to express a consensus on a subject or to help people reconcile their differences. Contemporary public art only creates bitterness among people.
Speaker 2 Summary
Elsa has a different take on what public art should do. She thinks it should emphasize radically different opinions. Elsa asserts that it’s impossible for art to either express a consensus on a subject or to help people to reconcile their differences.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on what public art should do. Laurie thinks it should help bring people together. Elsa thinks it should emphasize different opinions.
A
what types of public art are most characteristic of contemporary democracies
Neither speaker has an opinion. They don’t discuss different types of public art or what’s most common in a democracy.
B
whether it is possible in a democracy to create public art that people with radically different opinions can enjoy and support
Neither speaker has an opinion. Although both speakers discuss whether art can bring people together, they don’t discuss whether people with different opinion can enjoy or support public art. Enjoyment of art is different from art’s ability to bring people together.
C
what the criterion of success for public art in a democracy should be
This is a point of disagreement. Laurie thinks public art should bring people together. Elsa thinks public art should emphasize radically different opinions, and that it’s impossible for public art to bring people together.
D
whether contemporary public art creates only acrimony
Elsa has no opinion on this. She doesn’t discuss whether public art creates acrimony or other feelings.
E
whether it is wise for contemporary public art to help achieve a consensus on a subject
Laurie doesn’t have an opinion. She says public art should help bring people together by expressing a consensus or helping people to see that no opinion is definitive. But this isn’t the same as helping people to achieve a consensus.