Only four question
types allow for a
definitive
confirmation once
you have selected
an answer:
Assumption questions—use the Assumption Negation Technique. Justify questions—use
the Justify Formula. Evaluate the Argument questions—use the Variance Test. at Issue
questions—use the Agree/ Disagree Test.
Because of the specific nature of the correct answer choice, you can double check
answers by using the Agree/Disagree TestTM:
The correct answer must produce responses where one speaker would
say “I agree, the statement is correct” and the other speaker would say,
“I disagree, the statement is incorrect.” If those two responses are not
produced, then the answer is incorrect.
The Agree/Disagree Test crystallizes the essence of Point at Issue questions by
forcing you to concretely identify the elements that determine the correct
answer. Because the correct answer to a Point at Issue question can always be
proven by referring to the viewpoints stated in the stimulus, the Agree/Disagree
Test is actually a variation of the Fact Test expressly created for Point at Issue
questions.
After trying the Agree/Disagree Test, some students become enamored of the
technique and want to apply it to every answer choice. This is an overuse of the
technique! Like other “litmus tests” for answer choices (such as the Assumption
Negation Technique and the Variance Test), the Agree/Disagree Test is designed
to either confirm you have selected the correct answer choice or to decide
between two or three remaining answer choices. Applying the Agree/Disagree
Test to every answer choice will produce the correct answer, but the process
will take too much time. Use the Test judiciously.
Consider the following problem:
1. Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find it morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient.
Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries
the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or
historical value belongs to posterity and so must be preserved, whatever the personal
wishes of its legal owner.
On the basis of their statements, Shanna and Jorge
are committed to disagreeing about the truth of
which one of the following statements?
(A) Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his or
her father in an unflattering light would for
that reason alone be ethically justified in
destroying it.
(B) People who own aesthetically valuable works
of art have no moral obligation to make
them available for public viewing.
(C) Valuable paintings by well-known artists are
seldom intentionally damaged or destroyed
by their owners.
(D) If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its owner
has no ethical obligation to preserve it if
doing so proves burdensome.
(E) It is legally permissible for a unique and
historically valuable mural to be destroyed
by its owner if he or she tires of it.
Shanna argues that ownership of art conveys absolute power to the owner, and
such power includes and allows for the destruction of artwork for any reason.
Jorge asserts that ownership of artwork carries certain restrictions when the art
is unique, has aesthetic value, or has historical value, regardless of the wishes of
the owner. This is clearly an ethical disagreement in which the speakers
disagree on what rights ownership conveys to the owner. The question stem
asks you to select a statement about which the two speakers will disagree,
which is not necessarily the same as identifying the point at issue.
As mentioned in this chapter, certain types of incorrect answers tend to appear
in Point at issue questions:
Because the argument revolves around an ethical issue, wrong answers will
often bring up factual issues. Answer choices (C) and (E) are two such
answers. Answer choice (C) states that valuable paintings are seldom
destroyed by their owners. Whether or not this occurs is a factual issue that
can be determined by examining records, etc. Answer choice (E) discusses
the legal permissibility of destroying a valuable mural. Whether or not it is
legally permissible to destroy the mural is also a factual issue, not a moral
issue.
Other wrong answer choices will supply statements that both speakers
would agree with, or that both speakers would disagree with. Answer
choice (D) is incorrect because both speakers would agree with the
statement. Shanna would agree because her ownership beliefs allow for the
destruction of any owned artwork. Jorge would agree because the sculpture
in question is not unique, and thus does not meet the qualifications Jorge
imposed in his argument. If both speakers have the same opinion about an
answer choice, then that answer choice must be wrong in a Point at Issue
question.
With the elimination of answer choices (C), (D), and (E), only answers (A) and
(B) remain.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer because Shanna would agree
with the statement and Jorge would disagree with the statement. The key to
answer choice (A) is the phrase “for that reason alone.” According to Shanna,
ownership of the portrait automatically allows the owner to destroy the artwork
for any reason. Thus, disliking the portrait is sufficient justification for
destruction. However, for Jorge the art would also have to be proven nonunique,
non-aesthetically valuable, and non-historically valuable before he
would justify its destruction. Thus, answer choice (A) passes the Agree/
Disagree Test where one speaker says “I agree, the statement is correct”
regarding the statement and the other speaker says, “I disagree, the statement is
incorrect” regarding the answer choice.
Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it discusses the obligation
to make artworks available for public viewing, which is not mentioned in the
stimulus.
Let us continue examining answer types in Point at Issue questions. Please take
a moment to complete the following problem:
2. Consumer advocate: Tropical oils are high in saturated fats, which increase the risk of heart disease. Fortunately, in most prepared food tropical oils can be replaced by healthier
alternatives without noticeably affecting taste. Therefore, intensive publicity about the
disadvantage of tropical oils will be likely to result in dietary changes that will diminish
many people’s risk of developing heart disease.
Nutritionist: The major sources of saturated fat in the average North American diet are meat, , and dairy products, not tropical oils. Thus, focusing attention on the health hazards of tropical oils would be counterproductive, because it would encourage people to believe that more substantial dietary changes are unnecessary.
Which one of the following is a point at issue
between the nutritionist and the consumer advocate?
(A) whether a diet that regularly includes large
quantities of tropical oil can increase the
risk of heart disease
(B) whether intensive publicity campaigns can be
effective as a means of changing people’s
eating habits
(C) whether more people in North America would
benefit from reducing the amount of meat
they consume than would benefit from
eliminating tropical oils from their diets
(D) whether some people’s diets could be made
significantly healthier if they replaced all
tropical oils with vegetable oils that are
significantly lower in saturated fat
(E) whether conducting a publicity campaign that,
by focusing on the health hazards of tropical
oils, persuades people to replace such oils
with healthier alternatives is a good
public-health strategy
The consumer advocate argues that publicity about tropical oils would be
beneficial since it would persuade people to reduce their use of tropical oils for
the better. The nutritionist argues that since tropical oils are not the primary
source of saturated fat in the average diet, focusing attention on the hazards of
tropical oils would be counterproductive because it would lead people to
believe that they had changed their diets sufficiently.
Again, several answer choices contain statements that both speakers would
agree with. Answer choices (A), (B), and (D) contain statements where both
speakers would say, “I agree, the statement is correct.”
One type of wrong answer that you have not yet encountered involves
statements where the opinion of one of the speakers is unknown. Answer
choice (C) contains a statement that the nutritionist would agree with, but the
consumer advocate’s position is unknown. The consumer advocate did not
address the subject of meat in the diet, and since we cannot determine that the
two speakers would definitely disagree, answer choice (C) is incorrect.
At this point, having definitively eliminated answer choices (A) through (D),
you could feel somewhat comfortable that answer choice (E) has merit. But,
most students are caught off-guard because (E) appears to address a seemingly
irrelevant issue.
In answer choice (E), the consumer advocate would agree with the statement
and the nutritionist would disagree with the statement. Thus, answer choice (E)
passes the Agree/Disagree Test and is correct. This answer surprises many
students because they felt the disagreement was over fat in the diet. But let’s reexamine
the conclusion of each speaker, with italics indicating the real
disagreement:
Consumer advocate’s conclusion: Therefore, intensive publicity about
the disadvantage of tropical oils will
be likely to result in dietary changes
that will diminish many people’s risk
of developing heart disease.
Nutritionist’s conclusion: Thus, focusing attention on the health
hazards of tropical oils would be
counterproductive, because it would
encourage people to believe that more
substantial dietary changes are
unnecessary.
Both conclusions address the focus of attention or publicity, and a glance
through the answer choices shows that only answer choice (E) addresses a
similar topic. Remember, when a conclusion is present you must identify it
regardless of the type of question!
types allow for a
definitive
confirmation once
you have selected
an answer:
Assumption questions—use the Assumption Negation Technique. Justify questions—use
the Justify Formula. Evaluate the Argument questions—use the Variance Test. at Issue
questions—use the Agree/ Disagree Test.
Because of the specific nature of the correct answer choice, you can double check
answers by using the Agree/Disagree TestTM:
The correct answer must produce responses where one speaker would
say “I agree, the statement is correct” and the other speaker would say,
“I disagree, the statement is incorrect.” If those two responses are not
produced, then the answer is incorrect.
The Agree/Disagree Test crystallizes the essence of Point at Issue questions by
forcing you to concretely identify the elements that determine the correct
answer. Because the correct answer to a Point at Issue question can always be
proven by referring to the viewpoints stated in the stimulus, the Agree/Disagree
Test is actually a variation of the Fact Test expressly created for Point at Issue
questions.
After trying the Agree/Disagree Test, some students become enamored of the
technique and want to apply it to every answer choice. This is an overuse of the
technique! Like other “litmus tests” for answer choices (such as the Assumption
Negation Technique and the Variance Test), the Agree/Disagree Test is designed
to either confirm you have selected the correct answer choice or to decide
between two or three remaining answer choices. Applying the Agree/Disagree
Test to every answer choice will produce the correct answer, but the process
will take too much time. Use the Test judiciously.
Consider the following problem:
1. Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find it morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient.
Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries
the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or
historical value belongs to posterity and so must be preserved, whatever the personal
wishes of its legal owner.
On the basis of their statements, Shanna and Jorge
are committed to disagreeing about the truth of
which one of the following statements?
(A) Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his or
her father in an unflattering light would for
that reason alone be ethically justified in
destroying it.
(B) People who own aesthetically valuable works
of art have no moral obligation to make
them available for public viewing.
(C) Valuable paintings by well-known artists are
seldom intentionally damaged or destroyed
by their owners.
(D) If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its owner
has no ethical obligation to preserve it if
doing so proves burdensome.
(E) It is legally permissible for a unique and
historically valuable mural to be destroyed
by its owner if he or she tires of it.
Shanna argues that ownership of art conveys absolute power to the owner, and
such power includes and allows for the destruction of artwork for any reason.
Jorge asserts that ownership of artwork carries certain restrictions when the art
is unique, has aesthetic value, or has historical value, regardless of the wishes of
the owner. This is clearly an ethical disagreement in which the speakers
disagree on what rights ownership conveys to the owner. The question stem
asks you to select a statement about which the two speakers will disagree,
which is not necessarily the same as identifying the point at issue.
As mentioned in this chapter, certain types of incorrect answers tend to appear
in Point at issue questions:
Because the argument revolves around an ethical issue, wrong answers will
often bring up factual issues. Answer choices (C) and (E) are two such
answers. Answer choice (C) states that valuable paintings are seldom
destroyed by their owners. Whether or not this occurs is a factual issue that
can be determined by examining records, etc. Answer choice (E) discusses
the legal permissibility of destroying a valuable mural. Whether or not it is
legally permissible to destroy the mural is also a factual issue, not a moral
issue.
Other wrong answer choices will supply statements that both speakers
would agree with, or that both speakers would disagree with. Answer
choice (D) is incorrect because both speakers would agree with the
statement. Shanna would agree because her ownership beliefs allow for the
destruction of any owned artwork. Jorge would agree because the sculpture
in question is not unique, and thus does not meet the qualifications Jorge
imposed in his argument. If both speakers have the same opinion about an
answer choice, then that answer choice must be wrong in a Point at Issue
question.
With the elimination of answer choices (C), (D), and (E), only answers (A) and
(B) remain.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer because Shanna would agree
with the statement and Jorge would disagree with the statement. The key to
answer choice (A) is the phrase “for that reason alone.” According to Shanna,
ownership of the portrait automatically allows the owner to destroy the artwork
for any reason. Thus, disliking the portrait is sufficient justification for
destruction. However, for Jorge the art would also have to be proven nonunique,
non-aesthetically valuable, and non-historically valuable before he
would justify its destruction. Thus, answer choice (A) passes the Agree/
Disagree Test where one speaker says “I agree, the statement is correct”
regarding the statement and the other speaker says, “I disagree, the statement is
incorrect” regarding the answer choice.
Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it discusses the obligation
to make artworks available for public viewing, which is not mentioned in the
stimulus.
Let us continue examining answer types in Point at Issue questions. Please take
a moment to complete the following problem:
2. Consumer advocate: Tropical oils are high in saturated fats, which increase the risk of heart disease. Fortunately, in most prepared food tropical oils can be replaced by healthier
alternatives without noticeably affecting taste. Therefore, intensive publicity about the
disadvantage of tropical oils will be likely to result in dietary changes that will diminish
many people’s risk of developing heart disease.
Nutritionist: The major sources of saturated fat in the average North American diet are meat, , and dairy products, not tropical oils. Thus, focusing attention on the health hazards of tropical oils would be counterproductive, because it would encourage people to believe that more substantial dietary changes are unnecessary.
Which one of the following is a point at issue
between the nutritionist and the consumer advocate?
(A) whether a diet that regularly includes large
quantities of tropical oil can increase the
risk of heart disease
(B) whether intensive publicity campaigns can be
effective as a means of changing people’s
eating habits
(C) whether more people in North America would
benefit from reducing the amount of meat
they consume than would benefit from
eliminating tropical oils from their diets
(D) whether some people’s diets could be made
significantly healthier if they replaced all
tropical oils with vegetable oils that are
significantly lower in saturated fat
(E) whether conducting a publicity campaign that,
by focusing on the health hazards of tropical
oils, persuades people to replace such oils
with healthier alternatives is a good
public-health strategy
The consumer advocate argues that publicity about tropical oils would be
beneficial since it would persuade people to reduce their use of tropical oils for
the better. The nutritionist argues that since tropical oils are not the primary
source of saturated fat in the average diet, focusing attention on the hazards of
tropical oils would be counterproductive because it would lead people to
believe that they had changed their diets sufficiently.
Again, several answer choices contain statements that both speakers would
agree with. Answer choices (A), (B), and (D) contain statements where both
speakers would say, “I agree, the statement is correct.”
One type of wrong answer that you have not yet encountered involves
statements where the opinion of one of the speakers is unknown. Answer
choice (C) contains a statement that the nutritionist would agree with, but the
consumer advocate’s position is unknown. The consumer advocate did not
address the subject of meat in the diet, and since we cannot determine that the
two speakers would definitely disagree, answer choice (C) is incorrect.
At this point, having definitively eliminated answer choices (A) through (D),
you could feel somewhat comfortable that answer choice (E) has merit. But,
most students are caught off-guard because (E) appears to address a seemingly
irrelevant issue.
In answer choice (E), the consumer advocate would agree with the statement
and the nutritionist would disagree with the statement. Thus, answer choice (E)
passes the Agree/Disagree Test and is correct. This answer surprises many
students because they felt the disagreement was over fat in the diet. But let’s reexamine
the conclusion of each speaker, with italics indicating the real
disagreement:
Consumer advocate’s conclusion: Therefore, intensive publicity about
the disadvantage of tropical oils will
be likely to result in dietary changes
that will diminish many people’s risk
of developing heart disease.
Nutritionist’s conclusion: Thus, focusing attention on the health
hazards of tropical oils would be
counterproductive, because it would
encourage people to believe that more
substantial dietary changes are
unnecessary.
Both conclusions address the focus of attention or publicity, and a glance
through the answer choices shows that only answer choice (E) addresses a
similar topic. Remember, when a conclusion is present you must identify it
regardless of the type of question!
No comments:
Post a Comment