Summarize Argument
Water itself is one of the biggest water polluters. Why? Around many cities, pollution from runoff is greater than from industrial discharge. How? Water running over buildings and pavements picks up oil and other pollutants.
Identify Argument Part
This is evidence used to support that water is one of the biggest water polluters by showing water pollutes more than another big pollution source. It is also a sub-conclusion. The statement explaining how water picks up oil and contaminants supports it.
A
It is a conclusion for which the claim that water itself should be considered a polluter is offered as support.
The support relationship works the other way. The fact that water pollutes more than industrial discharge is evidence for why water is one of the biggest polluters.
B
It is cited as evidence that pollution from rainwater runoff is a more serious problem than pollution from industrial discharge.
The stimulus makes no claims about how serious the pollution is from any given source. It talks only about the amount of pollutants.
C
It is a generalization based on the observation that rainwater runoff picks up oil and other pollutants as it washes over buildings and pavements.
While that observation helps explain why water pollutes so much, the statement in question is not a generalization stemming from that observation. It is a comparative measurement against industrial pollution.
D
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that water itself is among the biggest water polluters.
This evidence, that water pollutes more than industrial discharge, helps make the case that water is one of the biggest water polluters.
E
It is stated to provide an example of a typical kind of city pollution.
It notes a pattern that appears near many cities. It works to support the conclusion, not illustrate an example of city pollution.
Tate: The freedom and autonomy that democracy provides are of genuine value, but the simple material needs of people are more important. Some countries can better meet these needs as autocracies than as democracies.
Speaker 1 Summary
Wong doesn’t make an argument, because there’s no structure of support for a conclusion. Instead, Wong just makes two factual claims: first, that all countries are better off as democracies, and second, that sometimes a period of autocracy is required for a country to transition to democracy.
Speaker 2 Summary
Tate’s claims support the unstated conclusion that some countries are better off as autocracies. Tate states that people’s material needs are more important than democratic freedom and autonomy. Furthermore, sometimes an autocratic government is more able to meet people’s material needs. From these, it follows that autocracy is sometimes a better option to meet people’s most important needs.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement between Wong and Tate. They disagree about whether countries are ever better off as autocracies.
A
There are some countries that are better off as autocracies than as democracies.
Wong disagrees with this but Tate agrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Wong says explicitly that this claim is false. Tate, however, implies that some countries are better off as autocracies by saying that sometimes autocracies better meet people’s most important need.
B
Nothing is more important to a country than the freedom and autonomy of the individuals who live in that country.
Tate disagrees with this, but Wong never states an opinion. Wong just claims directly that countries are always better off as democracies, but doesn’t back that up with any specifics of what democracy can offer.
C
In some cases, a country cannot become a democracy.
Neither speaker makes this claim. Wong says that sometimes a country requires a period of autocracy first to become a democracy, and Tate never talks about the requirements of becoming democratic. Certainly neither says it’s ever impossible.
D
The freedom and autonomy that democracy provides are of genuine value.
Tate agrees with this, but Wong never states an opinion. Wong clearly supports democracy, but never says why, so we don’t know if it’s because Wong values freedom and autonomy or if it’s for some other reason.
E
All democracies succeed in meeting the simple material needs of people.
Neither speaker claims this. Only Tate discusses material needs at all, and still never states an opinion about whether or not all democracies can meet material needs. All Tate says is that sometimes autocracies are better at doing so.