Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Government leaders’ wish to use the surplus to pay down the national debt makes no sense. This is because the country is underfunded and needs money to make it better off. The author makes an analogous argument to a homeowner who uses all their money to pay off a debt instead of reinvesting it in the farm.
Identify Conclusion
The plan to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt makes no sense.
A
Homeowners should not pay off their mortgages early if they must neglect upkeep of their homes in order to do so.
This is not the main conclusion of the argument. This is an analogy that lends support to the conclusion that the government leaders’ plan makes no sense.
B
It does not make sense for the government to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
This is main point of the entire argument. It receives support from the following sentences and the analogy.
C
A homeowner’s personal financial situation is analogous in relevant ways to the financial situation of a country’s government.
While the author believes this, it is not the main conclusion of the argument. The author uses the homeowner as an analogy to support the conclusion that the plan does not make sense.
D
Because of underfunding, the government does not maintain adequate standards in the services it provides.
This is a premise that supports the argument’s main conclusion. This cannot be a conclusion because it does not receive support anywhere else in the argument.
E
Government leaders want to use the country’s large budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
The conclusion is *not* that the government wants to use the surplus to pay off the debt. The conclusion is that this plan does not make sense.
Summarize Argument
Whether someone’s faithfulness is considered a good thing depends on what they’re faithful to. Virtues are qualities we admire and praise, which is why resentment isn’t seen as a virtue, even though it shows faithfulness to anger or grudges. Being faithful to something harmful, like hatred, isn’t praiseworthy, so it’s not considered a virtue.
Identify Conclusion
The argument's conclusion is that whether or not a person's faithfulness can be considered a virtue depends on the object of that faithfulness. In other words, faithfulness is only a virtue if it is directed toward something praiseworthy.
A
The object of a person’s faithfulness partially determines whether or not that faithfulness is virtuous.
This statement summarizes the argument’s main conclusion because it captures the idea that the virtue of faithfulness depends on what it's directed toward. If the object is praiseworthy, the faithfulness is virtuous; if the object is not, the faithfulness isn't.
B
Virtuous behavior is praiseworthy by definition.
This serves as a supporting premise. It explains why only faithfulness to something praiseworthy can be considered a virtue, but it doesn't capture the main point of the argument, which is that the virtue of faithfulness depends on its object.
C
Behavior that emerges from hatred or animosity cannot be called virtuous.
This is a premise of the argument. It provides an example that supports the conclusion by showing that not all forms of faithfulness are virtuous. It uses hatred or animosity to demonstrate that the virtue of faithfulness depends on what it’s directed toward.
D
Faithfulness and resentment are obviously different, despite some similarities.
This statement contradicts a premise of the argument. The stimulus argues that resentment is a type of faithfulness, not that they are "obviously different."
E
Resentment should not be considered a virtuous emotion.
The stimulus doesn't make this claim. It states that resentment isn’t considered a virtuous emotion but doesn’t discuss whether it should be. The stimulus doesn’t judge whether it’s right that resentment isn't viewed as virtuous; it simply presents this as an objective fact.