Q25 - Proposals for extending the United

[b91302310]

I could eliminate answer choices (B) and (C). I thought both answer (A) and (D) are tempting. For (E), I did not make it as a contender because it is like an assumption for the conclusion rather than a justification. So, could anyone explain more about it?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

The correct answer on these questions will often be a sufficient assumption, so if that's what you spot, it's likely to be correct!

The argument goes like this:

p: some ppl say we should not get rid of 3 month summers because those summers are a tradition

C: this is wrong.

p: 3 month summers originated in the need for a successful harvest

(A) is appealing if you mis-identify the conclusion to be the last sentence of the stimulus. That sentence, however, is what we might call an "intermediate conclusion," the ultimate role of which is to support the conclusion that the objections are "wrong."

Furthermore, it's just not a good match. Symbolized, (A) essentially says "justified by tradition --> not conflict with social needs"
Our original argument does not say this. Perhaps this would be a better match if matching up with Euro and Japanese schools were explicitly defined as a "more pressing social need," but it's not.

(D) is not in line with our conclusion. The author does not say we should do away with traditional 3 month summers. As far as we know, the author has no actual opinion on the length of school summers -- rather, the author has an opinion on the reasoning used to decide the length of summers.

(E) gets to the heart of the argument. The author takes us back to the tradition's origins in order to evaluate it. This is what this choice brings to light. In other words, what if there were other reasons to keep the tradition now, despite the fact that it was started for a certain reason? This choice rules out those possibilities and, by doing so, strengthens the argument.

[geverett]

I'm having a hard time following this one. I got it wrong by choosing D, but E was a close second. Here's what I was thinking:

I chose D, but now see another reason for eliminating it. The author does not advocate for "discarding traditional principles" rather he advocates for a deeper reason (needs of the economy) for justifying policy on the grounds of appeal to tradition.

I still have a hard time with E, because the conclusion speaks of "justification of a policy" while answer choice E talks about identifying reasons that originally prompted the practice."

Can someone help me out here?

[bbirdwell]

Hey Greg. First of all, from what I know of where you're at and what you're trying to do, I'd recommend you get out of the low-numbered tests and keep your attention focused on more recent PTs, even if you're repeating ones you've already seen. Just my personal thoughts - trust your own experience.

This is a tough question because there is no perfect choice.

I still have a hard time with E, because the conclusion speaks of "justification of a policy" while answer choice E talks about identifying reasons that originally prompted the practice."

Keep in mind that principles support reasoning, not just isolated conclusions. In a ballpark sense, the objective is to take whatever evidence is presented in the argument, apply it to the correct principle, and automatically arrive at the conclusion. Thus there is an undercurrent of "sufficiency" to principles that "justify."

So when you say that the conclusion speaks of "justification of a policy," this is true, but the primary support for that justification comes from the evidence presented about the tradition.

(E) is the best loose fit for this, though it seems a bit specific.

I chose D, but now see another reason for eliminating it. The author does not advocate for "discarding traditional principles"

right.

The others are out of scope.

[geverett]

Doing PT 40 today. Thanks for everything.

[WaltGrace1983]

Look at the conclusion again. It says, "This objection [of violating tradition] misses its mark." What is going on here? What is it saying? Well, I think it is more important to see what is not being said. The conclusion does not say that we should support, discard, or be apathetic to the appeal to tradition. All it says is that those who are appealing to tradition are missing the "aim" (another word for "mark" i'd say) of the whole tradition itself!

(A) Do we know anything about social needs now? Nope. Eliminate.

(B) Does this link the evidence for that the objection "misses the mark?" Nope. Eliminate.

(C) "Such appeals should be disregarded." Nope. Eliminate.

(D) Do we know that having 3 month summers no longer serves the needs of the economy? Nope! Eliminate.

[JeremyK460]

sub-conclusion: X is not a solid objection to P.

premise: X happened because E.

conclusion: if P could be justified by X, then P should be justified by E.