Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Researcher hypothesizes that the details of frightening experiences tend to be better remembered than those of nonfrightening experiences. This is because the Researcher observed that increased adrenaline secretion (which occurs during frightening experiences) enhances the clarity of one’s memory in those moments.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that adrenaline secretion is one of (if not the primary) factors explaining why frightening experiences are more clearly remembered. The author also assumes that nonfighting experiences typically do not involve increased adrenaline levels.
A
Some experiences are so intense that an individual’s normal tendency to retain the details of them is reversed.
While this suggests that some intense (frightening) experiences may not be remembered clearly, it does not cast doubt on any of the reasoning between adrenaline and frightening experiences. That is what you need to weaken.
B
An individual will tend to remember most clearly those details of a situation that are relevant to the satisfaction of desires.
This is focused on *what* is remembered most clearly, not *why* it is remembered. That is the focus of this argument.
C
Highly pleasurable experiences are, like frightening experiences, accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline.
This weakens the argument because it showcases that experiences other than frightening ones are also accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline. This directly weakens the relationship between the premise and conclusion.
D
Frightening experiences make up only a small fraction of experiences in general.
This does not touch the reasoning in the argument. The frequency of frightening experiences has nothing to do with *why* they are remembered more clearly.
E
If an individual perceives a dangerous situation as nonfrightening, then the experience of that situation will not be accompanied by increased adrenaline secretions.
This discusses exceptions to the described phenomenon but does not challenge the claim that frightening experiences, when accompanied by adrenaline, are better remembered.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Geologist believes that Earth’s rate of rotation increased over the past decade due to a law of physics: as a spinning object’s radius decreases, its rate of rotation increases. The Geologist claims that the increase in the number and severity of earthquakes have caused the Earth’s tectonic plates to move toward the center of the Earth, causing the radius to decrease and the speed to subsequently increase.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the movement of tectonic plates toward the center of the Earth outweighs any other factors that could cause the Earth’s radius to increase.
A
In the beginning of the twentieth century, geologists observed an increase in number and severity of earthquakes, accompanied by a decrease of Earth’s radius.
This supports the argument by bolstering the idea that earthquakes are causing the Earth’s radius to decrease.
B
During the past decade, other geological events have counteracted the movements of the tectonic plates that occur immediately after earthquakes.
This undermines one of the geologists' key assumptions: that another force did not counteract the decrease in the Earth’s radius from earthquakes. If this is true, the entire support of the argument is weakened, and its conclusion is called into question.
C
Only skillful figure skaters succeed in twirling faster by bringing their arms closer to their sides.
This is completely unrelated to the argument. The info about the skater is just context to explain how the law of physics works.
D
Since the time of the ancient Egyptians, Earth’s rate of rotation has been known to fluctuate.
If anything, this strengthens the argument by giving credence to the idea that the Earth’s rate of rotation changes. But it certainly gives nothing to weaken the argument.
E
Increased volcanic activity over the last ten years suggests that the overall movement of the tectonic plates has increased.
This does not say whether the tectonic plates are moving inward or outward. If anything, it is easiest to assume that the tectonic plates are moving inward, which would strengthen the argument, not weaken it.