Anthropologists have long debated whether the customs of a culture invariably function to preserve it. According to one proposed definition, a culture is the totality of the customs practiced by those whose culture it is. If this definition is correct, then the customs of a culture necessarily function to preserve it, even if only in the most trivial sense, because, under this conception of a culture, the abandonment of any custom by a culture’s members would by definition constitute that culture’s destruction.

Summarize Argument
If the view that a culture is an amalgamation of the customs practiced by its members is correct, then the customs of a culture function to preserve it. This is because the abandonment of any custom would lead to the destruction of that culture.

Identify Argument Part
The statement is a premise that supports the conditional conclusion by showing the implication of defining culture as the totality of customs.

A
It is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
This statement is not a conclusion. It does not receive any support in the argument. It is used to support the conclusion.
B
It is a definition of a technical term used in the argument.
This is not descriptively accurate. It does not define a technical term. That occurs earlier in the stimulus.
C
It is a claim that is used to support a conditional conclusion drawn in the argument.
This claim is a premise that supports the conditional conclusion (if-then) of the argument.
D
It is a claim that is used to support the view that a culture should be understood as a totality of customs.
This is not descriptively accurate. There is no claim that culture *should* be understood as a totality of customs. This is just one proposed definition of culture.
E
It is a claim ascribed by the argument to some anthropologists but dismissed by the argument as trivial.
The claim is ascribed to some anthropologists, but the argument does not dismiss it as trivial.

1 comment

The public’s welfare can be undermined by its own tastes. Journalists tend to focus on stories that will stimulate their readers’ interest. Because sensation and drama serve this purpose more successfully than do matter-of-fact descriptions of political or social developments of far-reaching importance, newspaper articles containing the latter are all too often displaced by those that highlight rumors and implausible conspiracies.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the public’s welfare can be undermined by its own tastes. As support, the author explains that journalists focus on stories that will stimulate their readers’ interest, which are often stories that involve rumors and implausible conspiracies. These stories displace stories that would be better for the public, such as those about important political and social developments.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assessment of how the public can hurt itself through its own desires: “The public’s welfare can be undermined by its own tastes.”

A
The best interests of the public sometimes fail to be served because of the sorts of preferences that people have.
This is the closest paraphrase of the conclusion. “Best interests” is another way to describe “welfare.” “Preferences that people have” is another way to describe the public’s “own tastes.”
B
Journalists’ tendency to focus on sensational and dramatic stories rather than those of far-reaching importance is to the detriment of the public welfare.
This is an assumption of the author’s argument. But this assumption is just part of an explanation of how the public’s welfare can be undermined by its own tastes.
C
Newspaper articles that focus on rumors or speculate about conspiracies too often displace stories about important political or social developments.
This is part of the support. Because newspaper articles about important things are too often displaced, this shows how the public’s own interests can hurt the public.
D
The shortcomings of modern print-journalism can be attributed to the preferences of its readers.
This was not stated or implied by the author. “Shortcomings of modern print-journalism” is too broad.
E
Journalists should pay more attention to the public’s welfare than to its tastes when choosing which stories to focus on.
The conclusion is not a recommendation about what journalists should do.

10 comments

The effects of global warming on the polar ice caps have been studied with computer models. According to some models, if the global temperature increases by as little as two degrees Celsius, the seawater will rise to a temperature that could melt the ice caps considerably. However, those models also show that under such a scenario, the volume of the ice caps would increase, not shrink.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
A rise in seawater temperature would melt the ice caps considerably, yet the ice caps would increase in total volume.

Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains how something that considerably melts the polar ice caps can also increase their volume. This explanation must result in the ice caps growth outweighing their shrinkage from melting, and provide some mechanism for how this growth occurs.

A
As global temperatures increase, more seawater evaporates into the atmosphere, thereby leading to increased snowfall at the polar caps, which then melts and refreezes as ice.
While a temperature increase would melt the ice caps, it would also cause increased snowfall at the polar caps. In turn, the ice caps would grow in total volume once the snow refreezes into ice. This accounts for both melting and volume growth.
B
As global temperatures increase, more seawater evaporates into the atmosphere, thereby lowering the ocean level, which then results in less contact between the ice caps and the warmer water, thereby stabilizing the size of the ice caps.
According to the stimulus, the ice caps would grow. This says they remain stable.
C
As sea temperatures increase, the difference in temperature between the polar ice caps and the adjacent water becomes greater, which in turn causes the water to melt the ice it contacts at a faster rate.
This intensifies ice cap melt, but it doesn’t explain why the ice caps would grow in volume.
D
As sea temperatures increase, evaporation of seawater causes the concentration of salt in the water to increase, which thereby lowers the temperature needed to freeze the seawater.
If the temperature needed to freeze seawater falls even further, then it seems even less likely the ice caps would grow in volume.
E
As global temperatures increase, more seawater evaporates into the atmosphere, thereby leading to increased cloud formation, which causes smaller variations between the average temperatures of the earth’s hottest climates and those of its coldest climates.
Unless those variations explain how ice cap volume would grow, we don’t care about them. This doesn’t tell us those variations explain anything.

11 comments