Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The critic believes that the recent trend to humanize vampires in entertainment is unfortunate. The critic acknowledges that the overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is generally a good thing, but asserts that the vampire myth should remain a powerful representation of evil because evil exists in the world.
Identify Argument Part
This claim qualifies how broadly the conclusion should be applied.
A
It states a principle used to support the conclusion of the argument.
This is not descriptively accurate. The conclusion opposes humanizing vampires.
B
It places limits on how broadly the conclusion of the argument should be generalized.
The critic acknowledges that moral complexity is generally good. However, he limits this general trend by supporting the conclusion that the humanization of vampires is unfortunate.
C
It justifies the need for the argument’s being given.
This is not descriptively accurate. The statement is not a premise, so it does not justify anything. There is also no “need” for the argument being given
D
It provides a hypothesis that is rejected in the conclusion of the argument.
The statement is not a hypothesis that is rejected. The statement is acknowledged and concedes some limitations.
E
It is the conclusion of the argument.
This is not the conclusion of the argument. It does not receive support.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The marine biologists hypothesize that young harbor seals start by avoiding all killer whales, but eventually learn which killer whales eat only fish. Why? Because seal-eating and fish-eating killer whales make chattering noises that sound different from each other, and harbor seals use that difference to tell which killer whales are dangerous.
Notable Assumptions
The marine biologists assume harbor seals avoid seal-eating killer whales because they learn to identify the fish-eating killer whales, and not for any other reason. This means assuming the reverse dynamic—that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but acquire an aversion to seal-eating whales—doesn’t happen. It also means assuming the ability to identify seal-eating whales is learned, not purely genetic.
A
Killer whales that eat seals also eat other marine mammals that are similar in size to seals.
This doesn’t affect the argument. It’s equally compatible with the leading alternative hypothesis: that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but acquire an aversion to seal-eating whales by observing them eat mammals similar to their own size.
B
Unlike harbor seals, which can hear killer-whale chatter even at great distances, most fish cannot hear that chatter, even close at hand.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication harbor seals use the behavior of fish to distinguish between seal-eating and fish-eating killer whales.
C
When mature harbor seals first listen to the recorded chatter of killer whales that eat only fish but whose dialect is unfamiliar, the seals rapidly swim away from the sound.
This strengthens the marine biologists’ hypothesis that young seals start with an aversion to all killer whales. It casts doubt on the leading alternative hypothesis: that young seals start with no aversion to killer whales, but learn to be afraid of the seal-eating ones.
D
Young harbor seals show no natural aversion to any seal predators other than killer whales.
If anything, this makes the leading alternative hypothesis more likely. Since it means young seals start with no aversion to other predator species, it suggests the marine biologists’ hypothesis—that young seals start with an aversion to killer whales—would be an anomaly.
E
If a fish-eating killer whale mistakenly attacks a harbor seal, that seal, if it survives, will subsequently avoid all killer whales that chatter in the attacker’s dialect, but other harbor seals will not.
If anything, this makes the leading alternative hypothesis more likely. It implies harbor seals at least sometimes learn to pick out the chattering of dangerous killer whales and acquire an aversion to those whales.
Summarize Argument
The theorists who argue that it is naive to view literary works as embodying varying levels of aesthetic value succumb to the this very view. This is because these theorists judge literary works based on how interesting and successful they are.
Identify Argument Part
The claim showcases how these theorists engage in thinking they disagree with. It is a premise supporting the main conclusion.
A
It is presented as evidence for the conclusion that it is naive to view literary works as embodying a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree.
This misidentifies the conclusion. The main conclusion is that these theorists succumb to the view they wish to undermine.
B
It is presented as evidence against the claim that it is naive to view literary works as embodying a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree.
The claim is not evidence against the prior claim. It highlights an inconsistency in the theorists' actions. The argument assumes that evaluating the aesthetic value of literary works is the same as judging them based on how interesting and successful they are.
C
It is a conclusion for which the claim that it is naive to maintain that literary works embody a distinct aesthetic value to a greater or lesser degree is offered as evidence.
This is not a conclusion. It does not receive any support.
D
It is presented as evidence for the conclusion that the literary theorists succumb to the view they wish to undermine.
The claim showcases how these theorists engage in thinking they disagree with. It is a premise for the following sentence (the main conclusion).
E
It is presented as evidence against the claim that literary works are expressions of ideology.
This claim does not cast doubt on the claim that literary works are expressions of ideology. It highlights a perceived inconsistency in the literary theorists’ argument.