Text Analysis practice questions.

Consider this passage: 'Since every law restricting speech is enforced by officials, and officials have interests of their own, such laws will be applied selectively. So laws restricting speech should be viewed with suspicion.' Which statement is the main conclusion?

• Every law that restricts speech is enforced by officials
• The officials who enforce speech laws have interests of their own
• Laws that restrict speech should be viewed with suspicion
• Laws that restrict speech will end up being applied selectively

Answer: Laws that restrict speech should be viewed with suspicion

'So' marks the final claim as the conclusion, while 'since' marks what precedes it as premises. The claim about selective application is itself supported by the two opening claims, which makes it a sub-conclusion rather than the main one.

An author writes: 'Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, so the universe has a cause.' Which unstated premise does the argument require?

• Every cause is itself something that began to exist at some earlier time
• Nothing can be the cause of its own existence, on pain of circularity
• The chain of causes cannot extend backwards without limit
• The universe is itself something that began to exist at some time

Answer: The universe is itself something that began to exist at some time

Without that premise the general claim never reaches the universe, so the passage is an enthymeme rather than a fallacy. Supplying the missing step also locates the dispute, since whether the universe began to exist is exactly what opponents of the cosmological argument contest.

A passage runs: 'Punishment is justified only if it deters. Fines for littering do not reduce littering. Consider the park by the station, where the bins overflow despite the notices. So fines for littering are not justified.' Which sentence functions as an illustration rather than as a premise?

• The remark about the park by the station, where the bins overflow
• The claim that punishment is justified only if it deters
• The claim that fines for littering do not reduce littering
• The conclusion that fines for littering are not justified

Answer: The remark about the park by the station, where the bins overflow

An illustration makes a premise vivid but carries no logical weight: strike it out and the argument still runs, whereas striking out either general claim leaves the conclusion unsupported. Carrying examples through as premises hides which statements actually bear the weight of the inference, so the reconstruction grows longer without the step from premises to conclusion becoming any easier to test.

Which passage is an argument rather than a report of what people believe?

• Many writers hold that art requires an audience, and many others deny it.
• Art needs an audience, since a work no one sees communicates nothing.
• The dispute over whether art requires an audience is a long-standing one.
• Some critics say a work needs viewers, while others say the maker suffices.

Answer: Art needs an audience, since a work no one sees communicates nothing.

A report says who holds what; an argument offers a reason for accepting a claim, signalled here by 'since'. Mistaking the first for the second is the commonest reason a text-analysis answer never engages with any reasoning at all.

A paragraph asserts that surveillance erodes autonomy and then restates the point twice in different words. What is still missing before the paragraph counts as an argument?

• A definition of the term autonomy as the author intends it
• An example of a surveillance programme with this effect
• A reason offered in support of the claim being made
• An indicator word such as 'therefore' marking the shift

Answer: A reason offered in support of the claim being made

Repetition adds emphasis, not support: an argument needs at least one statement offered as a reason for another. Definitions, examples and indicator words can all accompany an argument without any of them constituting one.

A passage runs: 'Machines can be built to follow any rule we can state. Understanding a language is following rules. There is no barrier in principle to a machine that understands.' Which sentence is the conclusion?

• The first, since it makes the most general claim in the passage
• The second, since it defines the key term the argument uses
• The third, since the other two are offered as reasons for it
• None of them, since the passage contains no argument at all

Answer: The third, since the other two are offered as reasons for it

No indicator word appears, so the test is dependence: ask of each sentence whether the others are offered in support of it. Generality and definition are both red herrings — a conclusion may be narrower than its premises, and a definition is usually a premise.