Section I: Answer the questions below about this brief passage:
During the nineteenth century, many women died from what was then called “childbed fever”. A Viennese physician, Ignaz Semmelweis, concluded (diagnosed) that the cause of this disease was a “germ” transmitted to the women during childbirth on the hands of the physicians and medical students who delivered their babies. He based his conclusion on the following: 1) The death rate of women from childbed fever was much higher when physicians and medical students delivered babies than when midwives delivered babies; 2) Doctors and medical students often delivered babies just after doing autopsies; 3) Those same doctors did not wash their hands before delivering babies.
Take the IQ to be, “What is the cause of childbed fever?
Dr. Semmelweis’ argument can be schematized as follows:
S1: In the 19th century many women died from childbed fever.
S2: The death rate of women from childbed fever was much higher when physicians and medical students delivered babies than when midwives delivered babies.
S3: In the 19th century doctors and medical students often delivered babies just after doing autopsies.
S4: In the 19th century doctors and medical students did not wash their hands before delivering babies.
=========
C1: The cause of childbed fever was a germ transmitted to women during childbirth on the hands of the doctors and medical students who delivered their babies.
Two additional rivals are:
C2: The cause of CBF was unclean bed sheets (not doctors).
C3: The cause of CBF was that hospitals were too drafty.
1. S1 is CTD because:
All the serious rival conclusions must explain it.
It is an explanatory hurdle for C3.
It helps C1.
None of the above.
2. S2 is (LER) NTD because:
a. It helps C1 explain S1.
b. This is a trick question since S2 is PTD.
c. It explains C1.
d. None of the above.
3. S3 and S4 are NTD (explanatory resources) because:
a. Both taken together make C1 more plausible.
b. S3 and S4 help C1 explain S1 and S2.
c. S3 and S4 are explained by one of the rivals.
d. None of the above.
4. True or False (explain in diagnostic terms): The argument with C1 as its conclusion is sound.
5. The following is a piece of new information--S5: When doctors started washing their hands, the death rate of pregnant women from childbed fever dropped dramatically. This piece of information is PTD because:
a. It explains why the death rate declined.
b. This is a trick question since S5 is a piece of NTD (LER).
c. C1 explains why the death rate decreased once doctors started washing their hands.
d. None of the above.
Section II: Consider the passage below.
Paint-scarred rock found near QE2 site
By Robert W. Trott
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BOSTON—Divers found an uncharted rock near where the Queen Elizabeth 2 hit bottom that was scraped clean of vegetation and marked with red paint like that on the luxury liner’s hull, officials said yesterday.
Damage to the 937-foot cruise ship was much worse than expected, Cunard Lines officials said after dry dock inspections forced the company to cancel all trips through late September. They had hoped to resume next week.
The ship suffered a series of gashes, cracks and dents extending along 400 feet of the hull, said Leon Katcharian, a National Transportation Safety Board investigator.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has been surveying the accident area off the southern coast of Massachusetts, has found “a number of uncharted rocks out there,” said Lt. Cmdr. John Wilder.
One rock, 34 1/2 feet deep, attracted the most attention.
“Vegetation is not on the rock the way it is on surrounding rocks, and it has this substance that appears to be red paint,” Wilder said.
The QE2’s hull, which is painted red, goes 32 feet below the water line.
“We hope to get an analysis this weekend to get a (paint) match,” Wilder said by telephone from NOAA headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.
In Boston, the local pilot helping guide the liner at the time told investigators he wasn’t worried when the captain overruled him and altered their course slightly. Charts showed sufficient water depth.
John Hadley, a Newport, Rhode Island-based pilot with almost 20 years experience, also said it was possible for the hull to dip below 32 feet because of certain ocean effects.
The QE2 was using British admiralty charts. But Andrew Willis, spokesman for the British Ministry of Defense, said these charts use information from NOAA, which last surveyed the site of the accident in 1939.
Wilder said the uncharted rocks were between the 1939 markings of rocks, which are spaced far apart.
Evidence offered in this article may be schematized in an argument with the IQ: What damaged the hull of the QEII? The conclusion reached by the investigators seems to be:
C1: The QEII hit the “uncharted rock” mentioned in the first sentence.
The argument for the passage can be schematized as follows:
S1: The Queen Elizabeth II (QE2) suffered a series of gashes, cracks and
dents along 400 feet of its hull.
S2: A survey of the area off the southern coast of Massachusetts found a
number of uncharted rocks.
S3: One rock appears to have red paint on it.
S4: The same rock has been scraped clean of vegetation.
S5: The rock in question is 34.5 feet deep.
S6: The QE2’s hull is painted red.
S7: The QE2’s hull goes 32 feet below the water line.
S8: The navigation charts used by the QE2’s crew were out of date; the uncharted rocks were between the rocks shown on the maps.
S9: It is possible for the hull to dip below 32 feet due to certain ocean effects.
===================================d
C1: The QE2 hit the “uncharted rock” mentioned in the first sentence of the passage.
Two other rival answers to the IQ are:
C2: The QEII hit some other rock that has not yet been discovered.
C3: The QEII hit a sunken ship.
Label each piece of support as either TD or NTD. For each piece of support you’ve labeled, what kind of TD or NTD is it? That is, for each piece of TD is it CTD, PTD or an explanatory hurdle. For each piece of NTD, is it LER, GER or TLR?
What piece of NTD hurts C1? In diagnostic terms explain in detail how this NTD hurts C1. Given your explanation, what kind of NTD is this?
What piece of information helps C1 get around this objection? Is this TD or NTD? Explain.
Evaluate the argument in diagnostic terms. That is, 1) explain in diagnostic terms why the three rivals mentioned are serious; 2) rank the three rivals, 3) explain in diagnostic terms why you ranked the rivals the way you did, and 4) tell me what the ranking shows about the author’s argument. (Note: you can use the information you have already provided to help you answer this question).
5. Provide some new information that increases the plausibility of C1. Is your new information TD or NTD? Explain.
6. Provide some new information that is an explanatory hurdle for one of the rivals (C1-C3). Explain why this information is a hurdle. How does this hurdle impact the ranking of the rivals.?
Why did you post all of these questions here?
1. S1 is CTD because it is an explanatory hurdle for all the serious rival conclusions. It suggests that there was a significant issue with childbed fever causing deaths, which needs to be explained.
2. S2 is PTD (Presentational Text Data). It helps C1 explain S1 by providing evidence of a higher death rate when doctors and medical students delivered babies compared to midwives. It is not a trick question.
3. S3 and S4 are NTD (non-trivial data) as they are explanatory resources. Both taken together make C1 more plausible by providing evidence that doctors often conducted autopsies before delivering babies and did not wash their hands before doing so.
4. True. The argument with C1 as its conclusion is sound because it provides logical reasoning and evidence to support the claim that the cause of childbed fever was a germ transmitted through the hands of doctors and medical students.
5. The piece of new information, S5, is PTD because it explains why the death rate of pregnant women from childbed fever dropped dramatically. It is not a trick question.
Section II:
1. Support for C1:
- S1: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is CTD because it explains the damage to the QE2.
- S2: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is CTD because it provides evidence of the existence of uncharted rocks in the area.
- S3: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is PTD because it supports C1 by indicating the presence of red paint on a rock.
- S4: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is PTD because it supports C1 by suggesting that the rock was scraped clean of vegetation.
- S5: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is PTD because it provides the depth of the rock which is relevant to C1.
- S6: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is PTD because it supports C1 by stating that QE2's hull is painted red.
- S7: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is CTD because it provides the depth of QE2's hull.
- S8: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is PTD because it suggests that the navigation charts used by the crew were out of date.
- S9: TD (Contextual Textual Data), it is PTD because it supports C1 by stating that it is possible for the hull to dip below 32 feet due to certain ocean effects.
2. The piece of NTD (Non-Trivial Data) that hurts C1 is S8. In diagnostic terms, this NTD argues that the uncharted rocks were between the rocks shown on the maps, indicating a possibility that the QE2 hit a different rock than the one mentioned in the first sentence. This NTD is GER (Game Eschewing Rival) as it undermines the direct connection between the mentioned rock and the damage to the hull.
3. The information in S9 helps C1 get around the objection raised by S8. S9 explains that it is possible for the hull to dip below 32 feet due to certain ocean effects, supporting the claim that the mentioned rock could have caused the damage to the hull. This is TD (Contextual Textual Data).
4. Rivals mentioned are C2: The QEII hit some other rock that has not yet been discovered, and C3: The QEII hit a sunken ship. The ranking of the rivals would be:
1. C2: The QEII hit some other rock that has not yet been discovered.
2. C3: The QEII hit a sunken ship.
The ranking is determined based on the plausibility of each rival conclusion. C2 ranks higher because it directly challenges C1 and suggests an alternative explanation, while C3 is less plausible as the evidence provided in the passage does not support the claim of hitting a sunken ship.
5. New information to support C1: S3 states that the rock mentioned has red paint on it. This new information increases the plausibility of C1 because it aligns with the fact that QE2's hull is painted red. This is TD (Contextual Textual Data).
6. New information as an explanatory hurdle for rivals: New information that would be an explanatory hurdle for C2 (QEII hit some other rock) is the presence of scraped clean vegetation found on the mentioned rock. This hurdle indicates that the rock mentioned is the probable cause of the damage, as it supports C1. This hurdle would impact the ranking of the rivals by making C2 less plausible compared to C1.