#8 - Jorge: You won’t be able to write well about the rock

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D).

The arguments of Jorge and Ruth can be analyzed as follows:

• Jorge’s Argument
  
  Premise: Rock music of the 1960s was created by and for people who were then in their teens and early twenties.
  
  Premise: You were just an infant then [in the 1960s].
  
  Conclusion: You won’t be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.
  
  Ruth’s Argument
  
  Premise: There are living writers who write well about ancient Roman culture, even though those writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture.
  
  Premise: Why should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a period as recent as the 1960s?
  
  Conclusion: Your reasoning is absurd.

Note that the question stem asks you to identify how Ruth responded. When two-speaker stimuli are combined with Method of Reasoning questions, you are typically asked to identify the reasoning of only one of the speakers (usually the second speaker). However, you must still understand the argument of the other speaker as the answer choices often refer to it.

Now let’s use the answer choices to discuss the structure of the argument.

Answer choice (A): Ruth does not challenge Jorge’s claim about her age. To the contrary, she seemingly admits he is correct when she says “Why should my youth alone prevent me...”

Answer choice (B): Although Ruth uses an example that cites culture, she does not clarify a definition of popular culture, and certainly not one left implicit in Jorge’s argument.

Answer choice (C): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The first part of the answer choice—“using the example of classical culture”—does occur in Ruth’s response, but she does not use that example “in order to legitimize contemporary culture as an object worthy of serious consideration.”

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. An analogy is a comparison between two items. In argumentation, analogies are often used to clarify the relationship between the items or reveal a fundamental truth about one of the items, as in “To better understand the operating system of your computer, think of it as the brain of your system.” The use of “brain” in the preceding sentence is the analogy.

Analogies can be used to challenge a position or support a position, but their strength often rests on the relevant similarities between the two items or scenarios. In the next chapter we will discuss False Analogies, where an author uses an analogy that is dissimilar enough to be nonapplicable.

As referenced in this answer choice, Ruth analogizes writing about Roman culture to writing about the 1960s to show that it is not unreasonable that someone who was an infant can write about that time period. Jorge’s assumption is that if a person was not a teen or older during the 1960s, then they cannot write well about the music of that period. Since all elements described in the answer choice occur and the answer describes the method used by Ruth, this is the correct answer.

Answer choice (E): Ruth does not attack Jorge’s qualification to make his argument, just his pronouncement that she will not be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s.

[momgoingbacktoschool]

Hello,

I am having a hard time understanding why the wording in answer choice D is correct. I eliminated all of the other answers and really wanted to choose D, and I did choose it reluctantly. However, my problem with D is that it says "unstated assumption" and I just don't see what "unstated" assumption she is countering. He explicitly says Ruth was an infant. Is it because he does not explicitly say "Since you were an infant, then you were not in your teens and early twenties'?

Thank you

[Paul Marsh]

Hey momgoingbacktoschool - great username, and nice job picking (D) for this one!

An assumption is any sort of "missing gap" between the conclusion and the premises of an argument. Here, Jorge's premises are:
- You were just an infant in the 60's
- Rock music of the 60's was created by and for people who were then in their teens and early twenties.
And Jorge's conclusion is: You won't be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960's.

Does Jorge's conclusion necessarily follow 100% logically and completely from his premises? No. In order to get to his conclusion from his premises, he seems to be assuming that anyone who wasn't at a certain age to experience a pop culture movement won't be able to write well about it. That's a big assumption! One that Ruth takes offense to and counters by way of analogy. So that's why (D) is right on the money here.

Hope that helps!

[momgoingbacktoschool]

Hey momgoingbacktoschool - great username, and nice job picking (D) for this one!

An assumption is any sort of "missing gap" between the conclusion and the premises of an argument. Here, Jorge's premises are:
- You were just an infant in the 60's
- Rock music of the 60's was created by and for people who were then in their teens and early twenties.
And Jorge's conclusion is: You won't be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960's.

Does Jorge's conclusion necessarily follow 100% logically and completely from his premises? No. In order to get to his conclusion from his premises, he seems to be assuming that anyone who wasn't at a certain age to experience a pop culture movement won't be able to write well about it. That's a big assumption! One that Ruth takes offense to and counters by way of analogy. So that's why (D) is right on the money here.

Hope that helps!

This makes sense. Thank you!