Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the group needs at least 30 volunteers in order for Garson to have a chance of winning the election. This is because in order for her to win, the public must be fully informed of her record, and in order for the public to be fully informed of her record, she needs 30 people to campaign for her. The campaign can’t pay 30 people to campaign, so they need to be volunteers.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assessment of what’s required in order for Garson to have a chance of winning the election: “Our group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers if Marcia Garson is to have a chance of winning the election.”
A
Marcia Garson will probably not be elected.
The author never states or implies this, so it can’t be the conclusion.
B
The political organizer’s group cannot afford to pay people to campaign for Marcia Garson.
This is a premise. This is why the group needs to assemble volunteers (as opposed to paid campaigners) in order for Garson to have a chance of winning.
C
If winning the election is to be a possibility for Marcia Garson, the political organizer’s group needs to bring together at least 30 volunteers.
This is a paraphrase of the conclusion.
D
If the public is not fully informed about Marcia Garson’s record, she will not win the election.
This is the contrapositive of one of the premises. The author uses the fact that people need to be fully informed about Garson’s record in order for her to win to support the conclusion that the group needs to assemble at least 30 volunteers for Garson to win.
E
At least 30 people from the political organizer’s group need to campaign for Marcia Garson in order to fully inform the public about her record.
This is one of the premises. The author uses this to support the conclusion that we need at least 30 volunteers in order for Garson to have a chance of winning.
Natalie: You mistake the films’ startling sameness for evidence of a lack of creativity. It would be more accurate to say that he ultimately creates strong new works from the same core elements, and these works are thus original.
Speaker 1 Summary
Minh believes that a certain director is “pillaging” his past work, but not getting much value from doing so. In support, Minh points out that the director’s recent films are very predictable, and in fact are nothing more than repetitions of his past films.
Speaker 2 Summary
Natalie argues that the director’s recent work is actually original, despite their similarity to past films. How so? Because the director is using the same elements to create new works (rather than just repeating past works).
Objective
We need to find a point of agreement about the director’s recent films. Minh and Natalie agree that the recent films are very similar to the director’s previous films.
A
They share many features with his earlier films.
Minh agrees with this, and so does Natalie. Minh says that the new films are simply repetitions of the director’s earlier films. Natalie doesn’t go so far, but does say that the films have a “startling sameness” and use the same elements.
B
They constitute evidence that he is pillaging his own catalog.
Minh agrees with this, but Natalie does not. Natalie thinks that the recent films do not show a lack of creativity that amounts to just pillaging past works, but in fact are original.
C
They are nothing more than repetitions of the director’s earlier films.
Minh agrees with this, but Natalie disagrees. Natalie thinks that even though the new and old films use the same elements, the new films are original works.
D
They are less original than his earlier films.
Neither speaker directly compares the director’s newer films with his earlier films. Each speaker expresses an opinion about whether the new films are original, but neither talks about how the old films measure up.
E
They provide evidence of the director’s creativity.
Natalie agrees with this, but Minh doesn’t. Minh thinks that the new films are evidence that the director is just repeating his past works rather than coming up with original new films.