Depression is a serious problem

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong1% picked this

   Nursing-home residents are more subject to depression than any

   Too Strong: more than any Relative vs. Absolute The passage doesn't support the incredibly extreme claim that nursing home residents are the #1 depressed group in the world. There could easily be other groups that are more subject to depression (f.e. people serving lifetime prison sentences, or soldiers irreparably wounded in battle). There are two famous traps involved here. Relative vs. Absolute The passage only tells us in yes/no language that nursing home residents are depressed. That doesn't give us any support for making comparative judgments about whether they're more / less depressed than other groups. Only Thing Mentioned = Only / #1 Thing I might tell you that 4th graders love video games based around ninjas. The fact that I only mentioned 4th graders loving those ninja games does not mean that only 4th graders love ninja video games or that 4th graders love ninja video games more than other people.

   1%
2. B

   Too Strong: best10% picked this

   The best method for helping a nursing-home resident to overcome depression is to provide access

   We have no support for the extreme claim that "pets are the best method for overcoming depression". Maybe meds are better. Maybe meditation or hypnosis is better. We weren't given any comparisons. Just like (A), this is making a huge leap from "the only method for helping depression that we mentioned was bonding with pets" to "the #1 method for helping depression is bonding with pets".

   10%
3. C

   Correct83% picked this

   High rates of depression among nursing-home residents may result at least in part from a

   Why this is right

   Such lovable, soft wording! "X may result at least in part from Y". This is just saying, "It's possible that lack of companionship plays at least some nonzero role in the high rates of depression among nursing-home residents". That is suggested by the fact that residents who form personal bonds (i.e. companionship) with pets have way lower rates of depression. Some of us may be thinking 1. how do we know that the correlation between bonds-with-pets and depression indicates that the bond caused the lessening of depression? (Reverse Causality -- Maybe you have to be not-depressed in order to even be able to bond with pets / Third Factor -- Maybe pet bonding and lower rates of depression are both symptoms of being a well-adjusted person who lived a good life) 2. Even if it is the case that having a pet causes a nursing home resident to have less depression, how do we know that the causal mechanism there is alleviating a lack of companionship? These are both valid questions. We don't know for sure the answers to those questions. But since this is Most Supported, we're not demanding an answer that is perfectly provable. We're on the sliding scale of Best Available answer, and it's hard to make the case that any of these other answers would be easier to defend in court.

   Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   83%
4. D

   Too Strong: essential3% picked this

   Animal companionship is essential for psychological

   Another answer that goes way too far in the correct direction. This answer, like (B) and (C), assumes that the pets are causing the nursing home residents to be less depressed. But like (B), and unlike (C), this says something way too strong for us to defend: you cannot have psychological well-being without animal companionship.

   3%
5. E

   Too Strong: eliminate3% picked this

   Allowing free access to pets in nursing homes would eliminate problems

   Just like (B), (C), and (D), this answer assumes that the pets cause the residents to be less depressed. And like (B) and (D), but unlike (C), it uses wording that is way too extreme. We can't say that allowing pets would eliminate problems relating to depression. There would be zero occurrences of depression, if there were just free access to pets? That's way too hyperbolic.

   3%