Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
To be able to explain the causes of cultural phenomena, you can’t just look at one society in isolation; you need data about several societies. Why? The philosopher walks us through an example. Say you want to know whether a certain political system can only be caused by specific environmental conditions. You’d need to know that this political system and these environmental conditions always go hand-in-hand. So, you’d need to look at the political systems and environmental conditions of several different societies to be sure there’s a pattern.
Identify Argument Part
The claim referenced in the question stem is the first sentence in the stimulus. It’s the philosopher’s main conclusion, and is supported by an example.
A
It describes a problem that the philosopher claims is caused by the social scientist’s need for certainty.
The referenced text is a conclusion, not a problem. The philosopher is stating what social scientists must do rather than describing issues within the field.
B
It is a premise used to support a general theoretical claim about the nature of cause and effect relationships.
The referenced text is a conclusion supported by the rest of the argument. There’s no general claim about the nature of cause and effect relationships.
C
It is a general hypothesis that is illustrated with an example showing that there is a causal relationship between political structures and environmental conditions.
“Hypothesis” is appealing, and there’s certainly an example. However, the example doesn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between political structures and environmental conditions. It simply states a conditions needed to be certain that such a relationship exists.
D
It is a dilemma that, it is argued, is faced by every social scientist because of the difficulty of determining whether a given cultural phenomenon is the cause or the effect of a given factor.
The philosopher doesn’t claim the referenced text is a dilemma, nor that it’s difficult to determine cause and effect. The philosopher simply claims that social scientists must examine several societies to explain the causes of cultural phenomena.
E
It is a claim that the philosopher attempts to justify by appeal to the requirements for establishing the existence of one kind of causal relationship.
The claim in question is the conclusion about social scientists’ need to examine other cultures. The justification is the example about ecological causes of political systems, which is one kind of causal relationships. This works!
Priscilla: That futuristic science fiction writers more skillfully envisage radically new technologies than new social arrangements shows how writers’ imaginations are constrained by current realities. Because of this limitation, the most effective social criticism results from faithfully presenting the current social realities for critical examination, as happens in conventional fiction.
Speaker 1 Summary
Lutsina concludes that futuristic sci-fi has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism than conventional fiction. This is because futuristic sci-fi writers can write about new social arrangements, since they don’t have to represent current social realities.
Speaker 2 Summary
Priscilla concludes that the most effective social criticism results from accurately presenting current social realities, as conventional fiction does. This view is based on the claim that futuristic sci-fi writers are better at imagining new technologies than they are at imagining new social realities. This shows that writers’ imaginations are constrained by current realities.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether sci-fi or conventional fiction are the best at social criticism.
A
some science fiction writers have succeeded in envisaging convincing, radically new social arrangements
Neither expresses an opinion. Lutsina only speaks about potential effectiveness, not about actual successes in writing social criticism. Priscilla doesn’t say anything about successful sci-fi writers.
B
writers of conventional fiction are more skillful than are writers of futuristic science fiction
Neither expresses an opinion. Lutsina doesn’t discuss skill. Priscilla refers to skill at imagining technology and social arrangements, but doesn’t refer to writing skill. Neither compares writing skill among sci-fi and conventional writers.
C
futuristic science fiction has more promise as a source of social criticism than does conventional fiction
This is a point of disagreement. Lutsina thinks sci-fi does hold more promise. Priscilla thinks the most effective social criticism happens in conventional fiction (and therefore not in sci-fi).
D
envisaging radically new technologies rather than radically new social arrangements is a shortcoming of futuristic science fiction
Lutsina doesn’t express an opinion about this. She refers only to envisaging new social arrangements, but says nothing about new technologies.
E
criticism of current social arrangements is not effective when those arrangements are contrasted with radically different ones
Neither has an opinion. To Lutsina, imagining new arrangements can lead to better criticism, but that doesn’t mean anything is required to be effective. To Priscilla, current arrangements are important, but that doesn’t mean comparisons to other arrangements are required.