Trisha: Today’s family is declining in its ability to carry out its functions of child-rearing and providing stability for adult life. There must be a return to the traditional values of commitment and responsibility.

Jerod: We ought to leave what is good enough alone. Contemporary families may be less stable than traditionally, but most people do not find that to be bad. Contemporary criticisms of the family are overblown and destructive.

Speaker 1 Summary

Trisha claims that families should return to the traditional values of commitment and responsibility. As support, Trisha says that modern families are not as able to raise children and provide stability for adult life. This implies that a change is needed, and traditional values can provide that change.

Speaker 2 Summary

Jerod doesn’t think we should interfere with modern families. Why not? Because even if Trisha is right about the lack of stability, that just isn’t a problem for most people. Jerod also finds criticisms of the modern family to be exaggerated. Families are more or less fine, so we should leave them alone.

Objective

We need to find a disagreement about the state of families. The point of disagreement between Trisha and Jerod is whether modern families should be changed: Trisha thinks they should be, but Jerod thinks we should leave them alone.

A
adequate as it is

Trisha disagrees with this statement but Jerod agrees, meaning that this is the point of disagreement. Trisha argues that families must return to traditional values (meaning, change). On the other hand, Jerod thinks families are “good enough” and should be left alone.

B
changing over time

Trisha agrees, claiming that families are changing by becoming less supportive and stable. Jerod doesn’t disagree, though. In fact, Jerod says that modern families may be less stable. This could be a point of agreement, or Jerod could be neutral; either way, not a disagreement.

C
valued by most people

Neither speaker gives an opinion on whether most people value families, so we can’t say that they disagree.

D
not going to survive

Neither speaker claims that families will or will not survive. Because no one says anything about this claim, it can’t be a point of disagreement.

E
no longer traditional

Both speakers agree with this claim. Trisha’s contrast between modern families and traditional values implies that modern families aren’t traditional. Jerod also distinguishes between contemporary and traditional families. This is a point of agreement.


3 comments

Once a child’s imagination becomes developed, a host of imaginary creatures may torment the child. But this newly developed cognitive capacity may also be used to render these creatures harmless. For instance, a child’s new toy may be imagined as an ally, powerful enough to ward off any imaginary threats.

Summary
The stimulus says that when a child’s imagination develops, the child might be tormented by imagined monsters. However, a child in that situation could also use their imagination to defeat the monsters—for example, by imagining a powerful friend who can offer protection.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus allows us to infer the following principles:
A child’s developing imagination can cause torment as well as offering reassurance.
A child’s developing imagination can be a source of problems, but can also be a source of solutions for those problems.
It is possible to use imaginary allies to defeat imaginary threats.

A
Some newly developed capacities only give rise to problems.
This is not supported. Imagination is presented as a newly developed capacity that gives rise to both problems and solutions, not just problems. We don’t have any examples of capacities that only give rise to problems.
B
Sometimes the cause of a problem may also provide its solution.
This is strongly supported. Based on the stimulus, we can infer that a child’s imagination can cause problems but can also be used to solve the problems it causes. In other words, imagination is both the cause of the problem and provides its solution.
C
Children are not able to distinguish between real and imaginary threats.
This is not supported. The facts in the stimulus never suggest whether or not children can tell the difference between real and imaginary threats. We can’t assume that the child doesn’t know that the threats are imaginary.
D
The most effective way for children to address their fears is to acknowledge them.
This is not supported. The stimulus never indicates anything about children acknowledging their fears. Instead, we learn that children can solve a problem of imaginary monsters by turning to a new, imaginary ally. It’s not clear if acknowledgement is part of that at all.
E
Most problems associated with child-rearing can be solved with a little imagination.
This is not supported. The stimulus isn’t talking about most problems associated with child-rearing—it’s talking about a single, specific problem that children may face as their imagination develops. We can’t generalize that to “most” child-rearing problems.

12 comments