Summarize Argument
The funding of NEO research to protect Earth from asteroid collisions is not a waste of money because buying home insurance to protect your home makes good economic sense.
Identify Argument Part
This statement connects the analogy of home insurance making good fiscal sense to the conclusion that government funding of NEO research is not a waste of money.
A
It connects an analogy made in the argument to the argument’s conclusion.
The statement connects the analogy (buying home insurance) to the conclusion that funding NEO research makes good fiscal sense.
B
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The statement is not the overall conclusion of the argument. It does not receive any support.
C
It defines a key term used in a premise of the argument.
The statement does not define any key terms.
D
It provides a contrast to the situation that is the main focus of the argument.
The statement does not provide a contrast to the situation. It tries to make the situations more similar.
E
It is a general principle for which the argument attempts to provide support.
The statement is not a general principle, and the argument does not try to support it. The statement is used to support the argument’s main conclusion.
Barbara: By that flawed logic, you would be entitled to the warm air that heats the unused spare room of my house, if you could divert it to your house without increasing my expenses.
Speaker 1 Summary
Rhett concludes that he shouldn’t have to help pay for the fuel requires for Otto to give Rhett a ride to work. This is because Otto doesn’t have to use any extra fuel from providing Rhett a ride to work.
Speaker 2 Summary
Barbara’s implicit conclusion is that Rhett should have to help pay for the fuel used by Otto. Barbara compares Rhett’s argument to the flawed argument that one can use another’s unused warm air for free if one can divert it without causing expense to the owner of the warm air.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Rhett thinks he shouldn’t have to help pay for fuel. Barbara thinks he should.
A
Otto requires Rhett to help pay for fuel for the ride to work
Not a point of disagreement. Barbara doesn’t comment on what Otto requires of Rhett.
B
Rhett should have to help pay Otto’s fuel expenses
This is a point of disagreement. Rhett thinks he shouldn’t have to pay, because Otto doesn’t use any more fuel from picking up Rhett. Barbara’s implicit conclusion is that Rhett should have to help pay.
C
giving Rhett a ride to work increases Otto’s fuel expenses
Barbara doesn’t express an opinion about this. She responds to Rhett’s argument by comparing it to an analogous, flawed argument. But she doesn’t comment on the truth of Otto’s premises.
D
Rhett is entitled to the warm air that heats Barbara’s unused spare room
Rhett doesn’t express an opinion about this. He doesn’t say anything suggesting a view about the analogous argument brought up by Barbara.
E
Rhett could divert to his house the warm air that heats Barbara’s unused spare room without increasing her expenses
Rhett doesn’t express an opinion about this. He doesn’t say anything suggesting a view about the analogous argument brought up by Barbara.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the very first economies were based on barter, with money coming later. This is based on the premise that, during times when the use of money disappears in isolated places, the economy typically “reverts to the original barter system.” These places then go back to money when it becomes available again.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument uses circular reasoning. In asserting as a premise that when money disappears in isolated places, the economy typically “reverts to the original barter system,” the author presupposes that barter was the original system. The author is trying to prove that the very first economies were based on barter, not money. So, when supporting that conclusion, it’s not persuasive for the author to assume that barter was “the original” (very first) system. This simply assumes that the conclusion is already true.
A
The argument concludes that something can cause a particular outcome merely because it is necessary for that outcome.
The conclusion doesn’t assert any causal relationship. It simply asserts that the first economies were based on barter, and money came later. This doesn’t say barter caused money to come about, or that anything caused barter.
B
The argument contains premises that contradict one another.
The premises do not contradict each other. It can be true that when money disappeared, places turned to a barter economy. Then, when money was available again, the economy turned back into one based on money.
C
The argument presumes that something should be done merely because historically it has been done.
The conclusion doesn’t assert that anything “should” be done. The author does not issue a command or recommendation or display any kind of value judgment. The conclusion is simply a descriptive one concerning whether the first economies were barter-based or money-based.
D
The argument infers a causal relation between two events merely from the fact that one event occurred before the other.
The author does not conclude or assume any causal relationship. He simply asserts that the first economies were based on barter, and money came later. This doesn’t imply barter caused money to come about, or that anything caused barter.
E
The argument relies on a premise that presupposes what the argument attempts to show in the conclusion.
(E) accurately describes the circular reasoning of the argument. A premise, in describing how an economy “reverts to the original barter system” presupposes what the argument atttempts to show in the conclusion — that the very first economies were based on barter.