In questions that ask for a valid inference or what “must be true,” we looks for valid inferences, direct connections between facts and rule that we can trace.

But in questions that ask what is “most strongly supported” by the stimulus, the inferences that we are asked to make are not conditional ones. And this is where the Principle of Charity shows its value.

Think back to our discussion of Main Conclusions. We described them as statements that indicate why we are listening to the author, the “reason we showed up.” When we listen to someone in a debate, it’s incumbent on them to tell us what their ultimate point is, to sum it all up nicely for us. But what if they didn’t? What if they gave us all the evidence, all their reasoning, but left out the “point”?

The good news is, of course, that everything we’ve learned about arguments helps us to “hear” the conclusion of the argument even when it isn’t explicit.

Monty Python's comedic sketches are known for their absurd premises, clever wordplay, and satirical portrayals of traditional institutions. Despite being created decades ago, these sketches continue to attract new audiences. Research on humor indicates that comedic material based on universal aspects of human experience, rather than on specific contemporary references, tends to retain its appeal over time.

Though our objective isn’t a Deductive Certainty, as is the case with Must Be True questions, we still have to see this argument through the lens of deductive reasoning, presuming that the author is presenting the stimulus in good faith with a determined purpose. In other words, we must see the argument charitably. So let’s Circuit!

Since there’s no Main Conclusion, let’s start by determining who or what is our Subject. Because the argument talks specifically about Monty Python and then broadens to a generality about humor, it’s a safe bet to think that Monty Python will be our Subject. That means our Minor Premise(s) will be about them. So what do we know about Monty Python?

Monty Python's comedic sketches are known for their absurd premises, clever wordplay, and satirical portrayals of traditional institutions.
Despite being created decades ago, these sketches continue to attract new audiences.

We’ve got two facts about them (and a Concession-Rebuttal) and we can circuit them like this:

So what’s the rest of this stuff"?

Research on humor indicates that comedic material based on universal aspects of human experience, rather than on specific contemporary references, tends to retain its appeal over time.

Well, it must be a Rule, right? Since it generalizes about humor, it must be the lens through which we are supposed to see the facts given and that warrants making some claim or another. And since “tends to retain its appeal over time” is similar-ish to “continue to attract new audiences” we should take it to mean that that is how we connect these dots. So…

And that’s it. So how do we predict an answer? Let’s get in the author’s head:

If they’re talking ABOUT Monty Python and they are proposing this rule about “universal aspects of the human experience,” why would they put them together unless you were MEANT to understand that as the implication?

So let’s just assume that that really is our conclusion, something along the lines of:

Now all of a sudden our little circuit looks like a regular argument!

Is it a valid one? Nah, probably not. As we said above, “attracting new audiences” and “retain its appeal” are not definitionally equivalent, so that doesn’t really hold up (and thus the dotted line there). Also, “Research indicates” and “tends to” is not enough to know that this is deductively true for Monty Python.

But do we care? Not a bit.

For our purposes, we’ve listened to our author, heard their voice, and understood their purpose. And that’s enough!

Most Strongly Supported