Dissecting Arguments

Prompt:
“The temperature in Smithtown averages ten degrees hotter than the temperature in Jonestown during the summer. Numerous studies, meanwhile, confirm a direct link between temperature and thirst. As such, one can expect residents of Smithtown to consume more water than residents of Jonestown.”

A. “It may be true that residents of Smithtown consume more water than those of Jonestown due to increased summer temperatures, but it is not wise to trust this assertion without knowing more information, such as the duration of the temperature comparisons. It is possible, for example, that the temperature study was conducted during a single odd summer in which one city had higher temperatures—when the two cities had equal temperatures every other year. If this is the case, then water consumption is likely to remain equal.”

B. “I disagree with the prompt, as it ignores other alternatives that residents of Smithtown might use to cope with the increased heat, such using more air conditioning to lower temperatures (which, according to the prompt, would decrease thirst) or quenching their increased thirst with sport drinks rather than water.”

C. “While the prompt appears credible at first due to its citation of ‘numerous studies’, it is essential to remember that not all studies are equal. If the studies are dated or linked to unreliable scientists or equipment, then their findings might be wholly inaccurate—and therein have no correlation with the level of thirst in these two towns despite even larger temperature differences.”

Incorrect. The temperature differences are presented as facts and not indicative of the author’s thought process. An attack on logic would address the conclusion drawn from these temperatures.

Correct. This focuses on the author’s use of logic to conclude that residents in the hotter area will use water to quench their thirst rather than using technology to lower the temperature (and related level of thirst) or another liquid to fulfill their thirst. The studies and statistics mentioned in the prompt should be accepted as fact, as they exist only to create a platform to showcase the author’s logic.

Incorrect. This focuses on studies that have been presented as fact, not opinion. An attack on logic would address the conclusion drawn from these temperatures: that they will ultimately lead to increased water consumption in the hotter town.

A. “Since Steve Jobs returned to Apple as its CEO, he has significantly grown its market share and profits by reimagining its products. However, this required billions of dollars and would not have been possible had Apple not already had such capital.”

B. “My uncle won the lottery. His ticket only cost him a dollar (not a lot of money by any measure), and it earned him millions in return.”

C. “Many of the best performing investment funds have high minimum buy-in fees, meaning their potential reward is only available to those wealthy enough to afford such minimums.”

D. “A person with a potentially profitable idea, such as founding the next big fast food chain, will need money to build this idea—money to purchase land, pay for food supplies, hire and train workers, and hire businessmen to protect these assets.”

E. “An entrepreneur can easily take out a loan to pay for his company’s startup costs, spending a bank’s money rather than his own. This would mean he was not spending money in order to make money.”

Correct. This highlights a universal truth that most businesses have to spend money in order to make money by investing in products, infrastructure, and personnel.

Incorrect. This is not only a rare exception that represents an oddity rather than a trend, but it similarly loses connection with the prompt by focusing on income from gambling rather than that of a “business”.

Correct. This focuses on a trend across many funds rather than a specific fund, which would fail to universally address the prompt.

Correct. This theoretical example focuses on costs that will apply to many types of businesses, not just fast food establishments. This proves a need for initial capital across the board.

Incorrect. This is a specific example but illogically ignores the fact that money is still being spent, as the entrepreneur would be spending the bank’s money (in addition to a probable down payment on this loan and eventual monthly payments).

A. “It is theorized that alternative energies such as hydrogen will one day be able to power spacecraft for a fraction of the price of fossil fuels.”

B. “Not only has space travel cost hundreds of millions in technological expenses, but it has cost lives as well, which are priceless.”

C. “While space travel is currently very expensive, it remains a strong investment because money spent today will make space travel cheaper in the future. Building the space station, for example, was quite expensive; however, its construction was a one-time expense. The more it is used, the more it will pay for itself—and in the future, it will require only maintenance expenses rather than construction expenses, which will be much more affordable.”

D. “The first space shuttle launched into space cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars.”

E. “While space travel might not bring back tangible profit from outer space, such as gold and minerals, the pursuit of such has yielded great technological benefits, such as the development of foams and safety equipment that continues to make its way into the lives of ordinary civilians.”

F. All of these examples are appropriate.

Incorrect. This is a theory, not a fact, and it addresses future expenses rather than the current expenses targeted in the prompt.

Correct. Identifying other types of “expenses” will show versatility and creative thinking. The loss of astronauts’ lives is expensive on an emotional level as well as a manpower level.

Correct. This stays parallel by addressing current expenses, but uses logic to explain why these expenses will ultimately prove to be a worthy investment.

Incorrect. This focuses on past expenses rather than current expenses.

Correct. Financial benefits are not the only reward on an investment. Technological benefits and innovations count as well.

Incorrect. Several examples are superior to the others. Try again.

A. “Toads may cause warts, but more information is needed to link this particular wart with the toad. For example, it is important to know where the warts developed and what body part or parts came into contact with the toad.”

B. “Similarly, it is important to know the author’s history with warts and toads. If, for example, the author has never before touched a toad but has developed warts on a weekly basis, then it is likely that the wart is caused by other reasons, such as a chronic virus such as the human papilloma virus that causes warts to appear regardless of external contact.”

C. “The idea that toads cause warts is a myth. I, for example, have touched many toads and never developed a single wart. Without citing a medical doctor or scholarly study to back this claim, the connection is unsubstantiated.”

D. “It is possible that this particular toad was not a carrier of the bacteria or virus that causes warts. The best way to know would be to find the toad and conduct a scientific test to determine whether or not the wart-causing catalyst was present.”

E. None of these examples are appropriate.

Incorrect. “This fails to explain why it is important to know this information. A stronger example would explain that warts are spread through direct contact, then highlight the potential absence of direct contact if the wart appeared on the author’s wrist when the author only touched the toad with his or her foot.”

Correct. Adding the example of an internal virus explains why it is important to know the author’s relevant background, as the new wart might have appeared due to a preexisting condition.

Incorrect. You need to address the author’s logic rather than the background or setup information.

Incorrect. This is sound advice, but not appropriate for an analysis essay as it fails to address the author’s conclusion from the information given. Rather than pointing out the best way to arrive at a separate conclusion, a stronger example would analyze the logic the author used to arrive at the present conclusion.

Incorrect. One example is superior to the others.