Instructions: Determine whether the following passages contain arguments. If so, analyze and diagram all arguments contained in the passage by bracketing and labeling the premises and conclusions in the passage and then diagramming them by using the circled numbers, direction arrows and brackets as shown in Units 1 and 2 of Study Guide I. If they are not arguments, determine whether the following passages contain explanations and descriptions. Explain and justify your answer with reference to the meaning of each of these terms.

1.Some argue that file sharing is actually good for artists, because it is in effect promoting their work . . .
[However,] when recorded music is not paid for, there are clear and obvious implications for those who create the music-songwriters, performers and the record companies that make the actual sound recording. Consequently, since the rewards to production of music has gone down, it would seem reasonable to conjecture that the result will be less music, and less diversity of music, in the future. At a minimum, the possibility of recording artists and songwriters earning a living from selling their music is diminished. It is difficult to compete with "free".

2.City Council should approve the proposed downtown arena, for several reasons. First, the need for the arena is obvious. Once the evidence is examined it becomes clear that the existing arena is inadequate. Moreover, it will revitalize the downtown and create an opportunity of other business to benefit from the increase in traffic. The question is whether or not the city can afford to build the arena. The problem is that the arena costs will run about $450 million. The city can raise another $250 million in a ticket tax and in property taxes for the new development over a 20 year period. The developer is willing to contribute $100 million, so that leaves a shortfall of $100 million. But, $100 million in a city of our size isn't really very much money and wouldn't take much to raise. I think that the city can afford the new arena.

3.When the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched the Hubble Space Telescope in 1990, the general public and scientists in the aerospace field both held high hopes. . . . But blurry images caused by a flawed mirror sent those hopes crashing to Earth. The U.S. Congress demanded an explanation for the failure. . . . Stress and health problems afflicted many NASA engineers. "It was traumatic," says the former director of NASA's astrophysics division, Charles Pellerin, who oversaw the launch of the Hubble. Nobody could see how to fix the problem.

Well, nobody except Pellerin. He not only had insight on how to solve the problem but found the funding and resources to repair the telescope, for which he received NASA's Outstanding Leadership Medal. But his real reward came over the next decade when the telescope provided spectacular images and important discoveries about stars, galaxies and other cosmic phenomena.

What was the secret of Pellerin's success? Dozens of other people at NASA had high IQs and world-class technical knowledge-they were, after all, rocket scientists. So what gave Pellerin the edge? What made him persist until the telescope was fixed when others felt overwhelmed by the challenge? His mind perceived reality differently. He reframed the situation as an unfinished project, not a failed one. He never lost sight of the potential for a positive outcome-a space telescope that worked. He saw how that positive future could happen as the result of technical solutions-corrective optics-package repairs performed by a crew of astronauts-that were possible with a rearrangement of funding and resources that already existed within NASA. By reassessing the situation, recognizing the potential and envisioning the repaired telescope, he was able to help orchestrate the unfolding of events that changed the future.