Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The anthropologist concludes that ice-age nomads’ food mostly came from plants and small animals, not big-game hunting as many people believe. In support, the anthropologist says that ice-age nomad communities likely only had about 15 to 20 members, and that big-game hunting would have risked multiple community members’ lives. This supports the idea that ice-age nomads would generally avoid big-game hunting.
Identify Argument Part
The text indicated by the question stem is the position the argument seeks to counter. The common portrayal of ice-age nomads as big-game hunters is shown to be a misconception by the anthropologist’s argument.
A
It is a premise used as support for the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement about ice-age nomads’ portrayal is not a premise, because it doesn’t support the argument’s conclusion. The claim that many people think ice-age nomads were big-game hunters gives us no reason to believe that nomads mostly got food from other sources.
B
It is a clarification of one of the premises of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement that ice-age nomads are commonly portrayed as big-game hunters is unrelated to the argument’s premises, and definitely doesn’t clarify them. The premises are about how ice-age nomads actually lived, not about their popular depiction.
C
It is an objection that the anthropologist raises against an opposing theory.
Firstly, the argument doesn’t present an opposing theory, just a common misconception and an explanation of why it’s wrong—so this can’t be true. Secondly, the anthropologist doesn’t use this statement to make any kind of point; it’s not a premise of any kind.
D
It is the overall conclusion of the anthropologist’s argument.
The statement about common depictions of ice-age nomads isn’t the conclusion because nothing else in the argument supports it. The anthropologist’s conclusion, supported by factual premises, is that ice-age nomads mostly got their food from plants and small animals.
E
It describes a claim that the anthropologist attempts to refute.
This is exactly the role played by the claim that ice-age nomads are often portrayed as big-game hunters. The anthropologist’s argument is focused on proving why that portrayal is wrong, by showing that ice-age nomads mostly ate plants and small animals.
Peterson: Ionic liquids cost many times as much as organic solvents, so they are currently not practical for the chemical industry.
Summarize Argument
Montoya believes that chemical companies should switch from organic solvents to ionic liquids. Peterson disagrees, arguing that ionic liquids are not practical because they cost many times more than organic solvents.
Notable Assumptions
Peterson assumes that the cost of purchasing ionic liquids outweighs the money that the liquid’s benefits could save.
A
The cost of organic solvents is only one of many expenses involved in industrial production of chemicals.
This does not impact the reasoning at all. The fact that it is “one of many” does not cast doubt on how large the price is relative to other expenses.
B
New methods for removing by-products of chemical reactions have recently been developed.
If anything, this weakens Montoya’s argument because it provides less of an incentive to switch to ionic liquids
C
The chemical industry has historically been quick to adopt new techniques that increase the rate at which reactions occur.
This does not impact Peterson’s reasoning. Peterson is primarily focused on the costs outweighing the benefits.
D
Ionic liquids can be reused many times, whereas organic solvents can be used only once.
If ionic liquids can be reused many times, their higher initial cost might be made up, making them more cost-effective in the long run. This directly challenges Peterson’s main conclusion.
E
For the sake of public relations, companies will sometimes use a more environmentally friendly process even if it is slightly more expensive.
This does not impact the reasoning in the argument at all. Why a company chooses to switch to an environmentally sound process is completely unrelated.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Researcher hypothesizes that several chemical compounds, particularly isoflavones, and phytosterols, found in soybeans effectively protect humans from cancer. This is because isoflavones inhibit estrogen production, which is linked to certain cancers.
Notable Assumptions
The Researcher assumes that no other factors will outweigh the anti-cancer impacts of isoflavones and phytosterols.
The Researcher also assumes that the animal studies used to introduce a premise are applicable to humans.
The Researcher also assumes that the animal studies used to introduce a premise are applicable to humans.
A
The soybean derivatives used in most studies are the products of specialized processing techniques and are not yet widely available to consumers.
This does not impact the reasoning of the argument at all. The fact that soybean derivatives used in *most* of the studies have these qualities is wholly irrelevant.
B
While phytosterols, which occur in high concentrations in soybeans, have been shown to decrease cholesterol absorption in the body, new evidence suggests that this decrease is not large enough to reduce susceptibility to cancer.
This directly weakens the argument because it weakens the Researcher’s second premise. This casts doubt on the argument that these compounds are effective anticancer agents.
C
A study of people with high levels of blood cholesterol showed no significant reduction in cholesterol levels after switching to a soybean-rich diet.
This challenges the link between eating soybeans and lowering cholesterol levels, thereby reducing cancer risk.
D
Consumption of soybean products might lower blood cholesterol in animals, but a study of people whose major source of protein is soybeans rather than animal products showed blood cholesterol levels no lower than normal.
This weakens the argument because it calls out one of the Researcher’s key assumptions: that the animal study she relied on *was* applicable to humans.
E
Preliminary studies have not shown isoflavones to have a significant effect on estrogen levels in humans.
If this is true, it weakens the reasoning between the first premise and the main conclusion. If isoflavones do not reduce estrogen levels in humans as they do in animals, the argument for their role in cancer prevention is weakened.