Advertisers typically prohibit graphic designers from signing their works because the purpose of a graphic design is to draw attention to an advertised product or service, not to the designer. Nonetheless, it is better that graphic designers not remain anonymous. Anonymity undermines effective graphic design by making it difficult to hold designers accountable for their work.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it’s better for graphic designers to not remain anonymous. This is because anonymity makes it difficult to hold designers accountable for their work.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assessment about whether graphic designers should remain anonymous: “[I]t is better that graphic designers not remain anonymous.”

A
Prohibitions against graphic designers’ signing their works are common in advertising.
This is part of the context. The author’s argument concerns whether this prohibition on revealing one’s authorship of a design is a good idea.
B
In advertising, the purpose of a graphic design is to focus attention on an advertised product or service rather than on the designer.
This is part of the context. This is why advertisers typically prohibit graphic designers from revealing their authorship of a design.
C
It is not desirable that graphic designers remain anonymous.
This is a paraphrase of the conclusion.
D
Graphic design is made less effective by anonymity on the part of graphic designers.
This is something implied by the premise of the argument. But this doesn’t capture the author’s conclusion about lack of anonymity being better.
E
Holding graphic designers accountable for their work is difficult when those designers are anonymous.
This is the premise of the argument.

5 comments

Archaeologist: The people who lived in this area deposited their rubbish in pits near their dwellings. Some claim that the rubbish found in those pits provides great insight into the possessions these people had, but this rubbish by itself actually tells us relatively little about those possessions; among other reasons, the pits have been subject to erosion over long periods of time, with destructive effects on the rubbish within.

Summarize Argument

The archaeologist concludes that the rubbish found in pits near old dwellings reveals little about the possessions of the people who once lived there. She supports by saying that the pits have been eroded over time, damaging the rubbish inside.

Notable Assumptions

The archaeologist assumes that the erosion has damaged the rubbish in the pits so much that it no longer provides much information about the possessions of the people who lived there. She also assumes that any rubbish that didn't decay or erode is either gone or else is not enough on its own to reveal much about the people’s possessions.

A
The pits contain certain tools not found in dwellings or at other above-ground locations.

This weakens the argument because, if the pits contain tools found nowhere else in the dwellings, then they do provide some great insight into the possessions that the people had.

B
Scavengers routinely salvaged the most durable items from the rubbish pits.

This addresses the assumption that items less affected by erosion are either gone or else don't provide much insight. If scavengers took the most durable items and only the most eroded ones are left, it makes sense that the pits may not reveal much about the people's possessions.

C
The soil surrounding the rubbish pits was sometimes removed for the manufacture of bricks.

This is irrelevant because we don’t know if removing the soil around the pits would have had an effect on the rubbish inside the pits.

D
The pits in which the rubbish was deposited had earlier been used by this group of people as burial sites.

The argument only focuses on the pits being used for rubbish and what that rubbish shows about the people's possessions. Previous uses of the pits are not relevant because we don't know how, if at all, they would have affected the rubbish.

E
Certain types of items were never discarded by members of this group of people.

The argument only addresses what the items that are in the rubbish pits reveal about the people’s possessions. While there are likely many other items that are not in the pits that also provide information, they are not relevant to the argument.


35 comments