Summarize Argument
The columnist claims that we should ban the publication of polls during the week before an election. Why? A few reasons. Polls can influence how people vote. They’re also less reliable than people think, so can be misleading. In the week before an election, there’s also not enough time to dispute polls and correct their mistakes. Finally, only banning polls for one week minimally impairs freedom of expression.
Notable Assumptions
The columnist assumes that banning polls in the week before an election would reduce their influence over voters—in other words, that people are still influenced by such last-minute polls.
The columnist also assumes that voters have access to less-distorted sources of information that could better inform their votes in the absence of polls. Otherwise, limiting polls could hurt more than help.
The columnist also assumes that voters have access to less-distorted sources of information that could better inform their votes in the absence of polls. Otherwise, limiting polls could hurt more than help.
A
Few people are influenced by the results of polls published during the two weeks immediately prior to an election.
This weakens the argument, because it undermines the columnist’s assumption that banning polls in the week before an election would reduce their impact on voters. If everyone has already decided how to vote based on earlier polls, then the last week doesn’t make a difference.
B
The publication of poll results would not decide the winner of an uneven election race.
This does not weaken the argument, because we can’t assume that all election races will be uneven and so not decided by polls. If it’s still possible for even elections to be unduly influenced by poll results, the author’s argument is unharmed.
C
The publication of poll results may remove some voters’ motivation to vote because of the certainty that a particular candidate will win.
This does not weaken the argument. In fact, this just backs up the columnist’s point that polls can influence election results by providing a specific example of how this takes place.
D
The publication of poll results in the last weeks before an election draws attention to candidates’ late gains in popularity.
This does not weaken the argument—it actually underscores the importance of last-minute polls, and thus affirms the columnist’s assumption that those polls make a difference.
E
Countries in which such a ban is in effect do not generally have better informed citizens than do countries in which such a ban is not in effect.
This does not weaken the argument, because the columnist isn’t claiming that a ban would result in overall better informed citizens. This also doesn’t say that voters living under such a ban are any worse informed—and even if it did, we wouldn’t know if the ban was the cause.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that something is discouraging people who would be well-liked teachers from becoming teachers at all. This is based on a study where secondary students’ favorite teachers tended to have personality type X. However, only 5 percent of teachers are type X, compared to 20 percent of all people. In other words, teachers are much less likely to have personality type X.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that whatever is causing so few type X people to be teachers is happening before people take on teaching jobs, not afterwards. For example, people’s personality type may change after becoming a teacher, or type X people may quit teaching jobs more frequently.
A
People with the personality type constitute 5 percent of the medical profession.
This does not weaken the argument. The author’s hypothesis is limited to teachers, and there’s no apparent link that would make medicine analogous to teaching. And even if there were, we still don’t know why type-X people are only 5 percent of medical professionals.
B
People with the personality type constitute 5 percent of college students pursuing a degree in education.
This does not weaken the argument. Aside from anything else, we don’t know the relationship between education degrees and teaching jobs. Maybe lots of people without education degrees pursue teaching jobs. So this statistic doesn’t tell us much about teaching applicants.
C
Students of teachers with the personality type are intensely recruited for noneducational professions.
This does not weaken the argument. What happens to students of type X teachers has nothing to do with whether type X people are being discouraged from taking teaching jobs.
D
Students with the personality type are more likely to be liked by teachers than those with other personality types.
This does not weaken the argument. How teachers feel about their students is totally irrelevant to how we can explain the lower proportion of teachers with personality type X.
E
Teachers with the personality type are more likely to quit teaching than those with other personality types.
This weakens the argument. If type X teachers are more likely to quit teaching, that shifts the problem to a later stage than the author identifies. The author assumes that type X people aren’t taking on teaching jobs, but this undermines that assumption.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that forensic science in general wasn’t responsible for the miscarriage of justice in the Barker case. This is because the forensic scientists acted with allegiance to the prosecution, rather than impartiality to the prosecution and defence.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an essential aspect of forensic science; if it was, then forensic science in general indeed would be to blame for the miscarriage of justice. The author also assumes that forensic science can be differentiated than forensic scientists themselves.
A
Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.
Allegiance to the prosecution isn’t an integral aspect of forensic scientists. Most forensic scientists know this, which means these particular forensic scientists simply made a mistake.
B
The type of injustice that occurred in the Barker case has occurred in other cases as well.
If that injustice has appeared in other cases, perhaps routinely, then this suggests forensic science may actually be flawed. We’re looking to strengthen the opposite claim.
C
Most prosecuting lawyers believe that forensic scientists owe a special allegiance to the prosecution.
We don’t care what forensic scientists believe.
D
Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the Barker case.
There’re lots of ways for justice to be miscarried. However, we only care about this specific way.
E
Many forensic scientists do not believe that any miscarriage of justice occurred in the Barker case.
This suggests many forensic scientists consistently believe they have an allegiance to the prosecution, which constitutes a miscarriage of justice. If virtually entire discipline believes this to be true, the forensic science is to blame. This could be a weakener.
Summarize Argument
The representative comes to the implied conclusion that the public need not be concerned about chemicals leaking into the river from the company’s plant. In support, the representative states that every new chemical must legally be tested for safety before being sold, and that this requirement is analogous to the testing required for new pharmaceuticals.
Notable Assumptions
The representative assumes that because pharmaceuticals are tested for their safety when consumed, industrial chemicals are also tested at this standard. But maybe chemical testing uses a different standard of “safety,” for example merely being safe to work with.
The representative also assumes that the chemical company’s dump only contains chemicals that were tested to the current standard. Maybe standards have changed, or maybe not all suppliers respect the law.
The representative also assumes that the chemical company’s dump only contains chemicals that were tested to the current standard. Maybe standards have changed, or maybe not all suppliers respect the law.
A
When pharmaceutical substances are tested for safety pursuant to federal requirements, a delay is imposed on the entry of potentially lifesaving substances onto the market.
This does not weaken the argument, because it doesn’t give us any reason to doubt the representative’s implied conclusion. Whether the testing delays the entry of substances onto the market tells us nothing about chemical safety standards.
B
Leakage from the dump has occurred in noticeable amounts only in the last few months.
This does not weaken the argument. The representative says that the chemicals are safe due to testing requirements, and like (D), how long they’ve been leaking has no relevance to that claim.
C
Before the federal law requiring testing of nonpharmaceutical chemicals went into effect recently, there were 40,000 such chemicals being manufactured, many of them dangerous.
This weakens the argument by casting doubt on whether all the chemicals in the company’s “long-established” dump would actually meet current safety requirements. This claim makes it totally possible that there are many dangerous untested chemicals in the dump.
D
The concentration of the chemicals leaking into the river is diluted, first by rainwater and then by the water in the river.
This does not weaken the argument, because like (B), the amount of likely exposure isn’t really the issue here. The representative’s claim is that the chemicals are safe, not that they’re potentially unsafe but diluted. This doesn’t address the chemicals’ actual safety.
E
The water in the river is murky because of the runoff of silt from a number of nearby construction projects.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not the river water is murky, or what other substances are in the river, is totally irrelevant to the issue of chemical safety. This just does not affect the argument at all.