Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author claims it is impossible for all uses of language to be metaphorical, contrary to what “some extremists” believe. This is demonstrated logically: the author tells us that unless some uses of language are literal, no uses of language can be nonliteral. By the definition given, metaphor is a nonliteral use of language. Therefore, there must be literal uses of language.
P1. Any nonliteral uses → some literal uses;
P2. Metaphor is a nonliteral use;
Therefore, there must be some literal uses.
P1. Any nonliteral uses → some literal uses;
P2. Metaphor is a nonliteral use;
Therefore, there must be some literal uses.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that it “cannot be so” that all uses of language are metaphorical.
A
It is not the case that all uses of language are metaphorical.
This is a good statement of the author’s conclusion. The argument is designed to prove that there must be some literal uses of language, and since metaphor is nonliteral, that means it’s impossible for all language use to be metaphorical.
B
Either all uses of words are literal or all uses of words are metaphorical.
This is not a claim the author makes. The argument takes for granted the existence of some nonliteral uses (metaphor) and attempts to prove that there must also be literal uses. It’s not all-or-nothing.
C
Nonliteral meaning is possible only if some uses of words employ their literal meanings.
This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It is used by the author in combination with affirming the sufficient condition (nonliteral use being possible) to conclude that literal uses must exist. This is a premise, not a conclusion.
D
Metaphors are nonliteral uses of language that can be used to suggest similarities between objects.
This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It affirms the sufficient condition of the conditional claim made by the author to bring us to the conclusion that literal uses of language must exist. In other words, this is a premise.
E
The ordinary meanings of words must be fixed by convention if the similarities between objects are to be representable by language.
The author never says this. The ordinary meanings of words play no part in this argument, which just focuses on the theoretical debate of whether language is 100% metaphor or not.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author says that certain people who claim Midville is more expensive than other nearby towns are wrong. Why are they wrong? They’re just thinking about Midville’s high taxes without considering the services Midville provides. These services cost less in Midville than other towns, balancing out the high taxes. So, according to the author, Midville isn’t more expensive after all.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the Midville residents who believe Midville has a higher cost of living than nearby towns “are mistaken.” In other words, Midville does not have a higher cost of living.
A
Midville is generally no more expensive to live in than nearby towns are.
This is a good statement of the author’s conclusion. When the author disagrees with people who say Midville is more expensive, all that means is that the author believes Midville isn’t more expensive.
B
Some of the residents of Midville consider their taxes to be too high.
This isn’t stated in the argument. Midville taxes may be higher, but we don’t actually know if anyone thinks they’re too high.
C
Services funded by a municipality are generally less expensive than those services would be if privately funded.
This statement is way too broad and sweeping for the scope of this argument. The author is just concerned with Midville vs. nearby towns, not the general comparison of public vs. private services.
D
Some residents of Midville are unaware of many of the services that Midville provides.
The argument does not contain any information about whether or not Midville residents are aware of the town’s services.
E
Most of the residents of Midville make use of all of the services the town provides.
The argument does not contain any information about whether or not Midville residents make use of all of the town’s services.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Evolutionists who believe that a line of Tennyson’s poetry refers to Darwin’s theory of evolution are wrong. How do we know this? Firstly, the poem in question was published nine years before Darwin revealed his theory. This implies that Tennyson probaby didn’t know about Darwin’s theory when he wrote this poem. Secondly, looking at the poem as a whole, the line actually seems to refer to a creationist theory of biology. This gives us a different explanation for the line of poetry, totally independent of Darwin.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is where the author states that the evolutionists are incorrect: “Tennyson’s line of poetry … is misconstrued by many evolutionists as a reference to Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
A
The line of Tennyson’s poetry cannot now be construed as an apt description of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The author never mentions whether the line of poetry could accurately describe Darwin’s theory. The argument is just concerned with demonstrating that Tennyson did not intend to refer to Darwin’s theory.
B
The dominant biological theory in the early nineteenth century was a creationist theory.
This statement is not supported by the rest of the argument. Instead, it is used to help explain that Tennyson was actually referring to a different theory, thus supporting the main conclusion that Tennyson was not referring to Darwin’s theory.
C
Tennyson’s line of poetry was written well before Darwin had published his theory of evolution.
This statement is not supported by the rest of the argument. Instead, it is used to support the main conclusion that the line of Tennyson’s poetry was not intended as a reference to Darwin’s theory, because Tennyson would not have known about Darwin’s theory.
D
Darwin’s theory of evolution was not the dominant biological theory in the early nineteenth century.
This is not a conclusion drawn by the argument. The author focuses on the relationship (or lack thereof) between a line of poetry and Darwin’s theory, not the overall status of Darwin’s theory during a certain period in history.
E
Tennyson’s line of poetry was not a reference to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This is a good restatement of the main conclusion. When the author claims that the evolutionists are mistaken about Tennyson’s poem referring to Darwin’s theory, that’s just another way to say that the poem did not refer to Darwin’s theory.