Summarize Argument
Durth concludes that the use of direct mail advertising by businesses is annoying and immoral. Durth supports this position with the claim that most direct mail advertisements are thrown out and not read, resulting in wasted paper. Additionally, it would be considered immoral for anyone else to waste this amount of paper.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Durth justifies a response in a particular situation by claiming that the same response would be expected in analogous situations. Specifically, if wasting of a lot of paper would be considered immoral in any other context, then direct mail advertising should also be considered immoral because it wastes a lot of paper.
A
presenting a specific counterexample to the contention that direct mail advertising is not immoral
Durth doesn’t argue against any claims that direct mail advertising is not immoral. Durth directly and independently claims that direct mail advertising is immoral.
B
asserting that there would be very undesirable consequences if direct mail advertising became a more widespread practice than it is now
Durth does not claim that there would be undesirable consequences if direct mail advertising were to become more widespread. Rather, Durth argues that the current undesirable consequences of direct mail advertising are unacceptable.
C
claiming that direct mail advertising is immoral because one of its results would be deemed immoral in other contexts
Durth claims that direct mail advertising is immoral because the paper waste caused by direct mail advertising would be deemed immoral in any other context.
D
basing a conclusion on the claim that direct mail advertising is annoying to those who receive it
Durth doesn’t base a conclusion on the claim that direct mail advertising is annoying to those who receive it. Durth’s conclusion is based on the claim that in other contexts, a similar level of paper waste would be considered immoral.
E
asserting that other advertising methods do not have the negative effects of direct mail advertising
The discussion of advertising methods is only context in the argument, and does not serve as part of Durth’s reasoning—it doesn’t help us get to the conclusion.
Summary
The stimulus discusses the evolution of bipedal locomotion (walking on two feet) in early hominids. It suggests that this evolution may have been triggered by the move from dense forests to open grasslands. Bipedalism would have helped early hominids see over tall grasses, locate food, and avoid predators. However, it also would have been advantageous in forests for gathering food within standing reach and possibly for improving mating chances. Because it conferred substantial advantages in many scenarios, debate continues about its precise origins.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There is ongoing scientific debate concerning the origins of bipedalism.
Bipedalism aided early hominids in dense forests and open grasslands.
Bipedalism aided early hominids in dense forests and open grasslands.
A
For early hominids, forest environments were generally more hospitable than grassland environments.
This comparative statement does not have any support. The stimulus only distinguishes between the two environments but does not say which one is more hospitable.
B
Bipedal locomotion would have helped early hominids gather food.
The stimulus says in two places that bipedalism helped early hominids gather food.
C
Bipedal locomotion actually would not be advantageous to hominids living in open grassland environments.
This is antisupported. The stimulus acknowledges that bipedalism conferred several advantages to those in grassland environments.
D
Bipedal locomotion probably evolved among early hominids who exclusively inhabited forest environments.
This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not answer where bipedal locomotion evolved and even acknowledges that debate continues surrounding its origins.
E
For early hominids, gathering food was more relevant to survival than was detecting and avoiding predators.
The stimulus identifies both gathering food and detecting/avoiding predators as advantages, but does not give one a preference over the other.