Albert: Swenson’s popular book

Answer choices

1. A

   Both Positions Unsupported0% picked this

   sun exposure harms skin

   We couldn't derive "sun exposure harms skin cells" from either person's claims, nor could we derive "sun exposure doesn't harm skin cells" from either person's claims. (Yes, Swenson believes that sun exposure doesn't harm skin cells, but we have no idea whether Albert believes that) Yvonne doesn't talk about sun exposure or skin cells at all.

   0%
2. B

   Unsupported Disagree Position0% picked this

   Swenson’s book is a model of

   We can support that Albert agrees with this, because he explicitly says so. But can we support from Yvonne's claims that she thinks "Swenson's book is not a model of poor scholarship"? No, she doesn't talk about Swenson's book at all, so we have no idea whether she thinks it's good or bad scholarship. We only know that she thinks it's a crazy argument to say, "S's book is poor scholarship, but it's valuable because it stimulated research."

   0%
3. C

   Correct96% picked this

   Swenson’s book should be considered

   Why this is right

   We can support the Agree position with Albert, because he explicitly says the book is valuable. We can support the Disagree position (Swenson's book should not be considered valuable) with Yvonne. She reacts to Albert saying "The book is nonetheless valuable" by exasperatingly disagreeing: "You're kidding me!" She provides an analogy to show Albert how crazy his conclusion is. "Would you conclude that a virus is valuable because it stimulates epidemiologists? Of course not. Similarly, you shouldn't consider Swenson's book valuable just because it stimulated research."

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

   96%
4. D

   Unsupported Disagree Position1% picked this

   Swenson’s book has stimulated new research on

   We can support that Albert agrees with this, because he explicitly says so. But can we support from Yvonne's claims that she thinks "Swenson's book has not stimulated new research"? No, she doesn't seem to deny that the book has stimulated new research.

   1%
5. E

   Both Positions Unsupported2% picked this

   something that does not stimulate new research can

   We can't infer "something that doesn't stimulate new research can have value" from either person's claims. Neither of them discuss "something that doesn't stimulate new research". They both only talk about something (Swenson's book / a new virus) that does stimulate new research. Since we have no commentary on things that don't stimulate new research, we have no support for agreeing or disagreeing with this claim. This answer is nonetheless a little tempting, because a legitimate answer could have been "something that does stimulate new research automatically has value". (Albert would agree and Yvonne would disagree with this claim)

   2%