Identify the technique | Video lesson

- [Instructor] This question asks, "The argument does which one of the following?" That means that our task is to identify the technique. One of the choices will describe how the arguer proceeds or what the arguer does, and the other four choices will describe something that the arguer isn't actually doing. Pause your video now if you'd like to try this question on your own, otherwise, let's move on to the explanation. Okay, let's read the stimulus together. Don't concentrate on the details or analyzing what the arguer is saying. Our job is to determine what the arguer is doing, not what the arguer is saying. Pay attention to the nature of the conclusion and evidence as we read. When a nation is on the brink of financial crisis, its government does not violate free-market principles if, in order to prevent economic collapse, it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money. After all, the right to free speech does not include the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and the harm done as investors and lenders rush madly to get their money out before everyone else does can be just as real as the harm resulting from a stampede in a theatre. We've got a really strong signal right in the middle here. The arguer says, "after all." Remember that "after all" strongly signals that evidence is coming, and that that evidence is going to support what came before the phrase "after all." Saying "after all" is a lot like saying "the reason is." And that's exactly what evidence is. It's a reason for believing something. So let's mark the first sentence at the conclusion, knowing that the second sentence is the support. We wanna make a prediction before we look at the choices, so let's figure it out. What is the arguer doing here? The conclusion is just an assertion of something that the arguer believes to be true, that a government isn't violating free-market principles in a certain situation. You might be thinking, "Well, that's cutting "a lot of the details out," and you would be right, but remember, we care about what the arguer is doing, and how the arguer's proceeding. Alright, so how does the arguer support the point that a government isn't violating principles in a certain situation? By comparing that situation to a completely different situation, and showing that they're similar enough to warrant the conclusion. In other words, the arguer believes that even though the government should normally act in one certain way, the government is justified in acting in a different way when the nation is facing financial crisis. And to try to prove this, the arguer shows that even though people normally have the right to free speech, you shouldn't exercise that right in a specific instance. So what's our prediction for what the arguer's doing? The arguer is making an analogy in order to make a case for a specific scenario. And that's what the question means when it asks, "The argument does which one of the following?" So we can find a match for the prediction in the choices. Choice A states that the argument tries to show that a set of principles is limited in a specific way by using an analogy to a similar principle that is limited in a similar way. That's a match for what we predicted. We said the arguer is making an analogy to make a case for a specific exceptional scenario. On test day, if you feel confident in your prediction, then you can happily select this answer and move to a different question. Let's look at why the other choices are wrong so that you know what to expect for this question type's wrong choices. B states that the argument infers a claim by arguing that the truth of that claim would best explain observed facts. This doesn't describe what's happening in the argument. There are no observed facts that the arguer is trying to explain. It's common for the wrong choices in technique questions to veer away from what's actually happening in the passage, like we see here. C describes the argument as presenting numerous experimental results as evidence for a general principle. Well, this is similar to B in that there aren't any experimental results in the passage. So the choice is describing something that isn't happening. D reads, "attempts to demonstrate that an explanation "of a phenomenon is flawed by showing that it fails to explain a particular instance of that phenomenon." Ah, that all sounds very fancy, but if we try to unpack it a little, we'll see that the argument's not trying to show that an explanation of a phenomenon is flawed. There isn't any kind of critique of any kind going on in the passage, so that's why I'm gonna eliminate choice D. Finally, E says that the argument applies an empirical generalization to reach a conclusion about a particular case. Again, let's unpack this, even if you aren't quite sure what the exact definition of an empirical generalization is, you can ask yourself if this argument does reach a conclusion about a particular case. No, it doesn't, there's no discussion of any specific cases, but rather a discussion of general principles. Therefore, we can rule out this choice based on that alone. Just in case you're curious, an empirical generalization is basically a general statement that's based upon experience. So for example, if I ate an unripe orange every day for 50 years, let's say, I could make an empirical generalization that unripe oranges aren't sweet, based on my experience. So to recap, for identify-the-technique questions, you'll want to pay very close attention to structure. Ask yourself, what is the arguer doing in the conclusion? Is she refuting a claim, is she predicting an event? Then ask yourself what kind of evidence the arguer is using to prove her point. Is she using statistics, a counterexample, is she relying on a scientific expert? If you can determine those two things, then you'll be well on your way to a strong prediction and another point on test day.