Summarize Argument
The author concludes that in the future, TV advertisers would be more effective by targeting over-65 consumers, rather than 18-to-25 consumers. This is because the average discretionary income of those over 65 will soon be greater than that of people who are 18-to-25.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there aren’t other factors relating to over-65 consumers that might offset the significance of their higher discretionary income. What if, for example, people over 65 tend to spend less money on purchases than people 18-to-25, despite having a higher average discretionary income?
A
Consumers over the age of 65 tend to watch different television shows than do young adults.
This only means TV advertisers would need to change which shows they advertise on. But this doesn’t suggest targeting the over-65 consumers might not be better than targeting the 18-to-25 group.
B
The older a consumer is, the more likely he or she is to have already established brand loyalties.
This points out that, compared to the 18-to-25 group, the over-65 group is less susceptible to advertising designed to create brand loyalties. So, even though the older group might have more money to spend, it may be more difficult to change their minds about what brand to buy.
C
The average discretionary income of young adults is projected to rise in the near future.
The premise already establishes that the average discretionary income of those over 65 will soon be greater than that of young adults. So, even if young adults’ income will go up, we still know it will be lower than the over-65’s income.
D
The greater a consumer’s discretionary income, the more likely advertising is to encourage that consumer to buy.
This strengthens the argument by establishing a connection between higher discretionary income and potential effectiveness of ads.
E
The number of consumers over the age of 65 is increasing more rapidly than is the number of young adults.
This strengthens the argument by ruling out the possiblity that the number of over-65 people is significantly lower than the number of 18-to-25 people, which could have been a factor weighing against targeting the over-65 group.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that confronting one’s fears probably increases one’s self-confidence. This is based on the fact that people who participate in risky sports have more self-confidence than people who don’t participate in risky sports
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the correlation between participation in risky sports and self-confidence is explained by participation in risky sports causing more self-confidence. This overlooks the possibility of other explanations for the correlation. In particular, it’s possible people who are already more self-confident are more likely to participate in risky sports.
A
Often those who suffer from fears such as a fear of heights either do not know that they suffer from those fears or do not know the extent to which they suffer from them.
The author never suggested that everyone who suffers from a fear of heights will engage in activities to try to confront those fears. Some people might not be aware and might not do anything to confront their unknown fears.
B
In general, people who currently participate in risky sports had above-average self-confidence even before participating in any risky sport.
This raises the possibility that the causal relationship between risky sports and self-confidence is reversed. People who start off with higher self confidence are more likely to participate in risky sports, which could explain the correlation we observe.
C
Most people who refrain from engaging in risky sports refrain from doing so for reasons other than a fear of death or injury.
This has no clear impact on the argument. If anything, this might strengthen the argument by suggesting that it’s not a lack of confidence that causes people to choose not to participate in risky sports.
D
Participating in risky sports is not the only way to confront one’s fears.
The author never suggested that risky sports are the only way to confront one’s fears. We know people who do risky sports often do so to confront their fears, but maybe people confront fears in other ways, too. This doesn’t suggest risky sports might not increase confidence.
E
Most of those who do not participate in risky sports believe that they lack the capacity to excel in such activities.
This has no clear impact on the argument. This doesn’t provide an alternate explanation for the correlation between risky sports and higher self-confidence, nor does it provide evidence suggesting risky sports might not be the cause of higher self-confidence.
Suarez: Would you say the same about nonviolent crimes, such as tax evasion? Surely mandatory penalties are a useful deterrent in these cases. At any rate, I am confident that mandatory sentences prevent most people who would otherwise physically harm others from doing so.
Speaker 1 Summary
Huang claims that, to reduce violent crime, we should address the root causes of violence instead of imposing mandatory sentences. As support, Huang explains that most people who commit violent crimes don’t think about the likely punishment. Also, people who don’t commit violent crimes just aren’t inclined to. This indicates that mandatory sentences don’t make much difference.
Speaker 2 Summary
Suarez argues towards an implied conclusion that mandatory sentences are a useful deterrent. To support this, Suarez says that mandatory penalties do deter nonviolent crimes (implying a possible analogous effect for violent crimes). Suarez also claims that mandatory sentences prevent most physical violence from happening.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. Huang and Suarez disagree about whether mandatory sentences deter violent crime.
A
the best way to reduce violent crime is to address the root causes of violence
Huang says that we should reduce violent crime by addressing the root causes of violence, which could be taken as agreement with this claim. However, Suarez never talks about the merit of addressing the root causes of violence.
B
people who commit violent crimes deserve harsh punishment
Neither speaker talks about whether people deserve punishment. Their debate is about the practical effect of mandatory sentences, not the moral aspect of deservingness.
C
people who commit violent crimes carefully consider how they will be punished for their crimes
Huang explicitly disagrees with this claim, but Suarez doesn’t give an opinion. Although Suarez thinks that mandatory sentences can deter violent crime, that’s not the same as saying that potential offenders always carefully consider potential punishments.
D
mandatory sentences will deter most people who might otherwise commit violent crimes
Huang disagrees with this but Suarez agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Huang’s argument indicates that mandatory sentences don’t have a deterrent effect on violent crime. Suarez, however, directly states a belief that mandatory sentences prevent most violence.
E
severe penalties reduce the incidence of tax evasion
Suarez most likely agrees with this, but Huang never talks about nonviolent crimes such as tax evasion. We don’t know what Huang thinks about the possible deterrent effect of severe penalties in such cases.