Q4 - Maria: Thomas Edison was one

[ottoman]

I choose A because of process of elimination. But I have difficulty understanding how A can be applied to the question.

Could you explain it?
THANK YOU!!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Lets look at Maria's argument. She says that one does not need formal education to make crucial contributions to technological advancement.

Frank then jumps in and says that things have changed: one needs extensive technical knowledge to make such contributions today.

What's wrong here? Well, does one need formal education to have technological knowledge? Is Frank really addressing the issue Maria brought up?

Answer choice (A) undermines Frank's argument by questioning the connection between formal education and having extensive technical knowledge.

Incorrect Answers
(B) is not true, Frank does consider such developments since Edison.
(C) is not true, there doesn't seem to be any difference in the meaning of "crucial" between Maria and Frank.
(D) is out of scope. Who cares about inventors other than Edison?
(E) is not true, Frank does question Maria's conclusion. It's just that his evidence relies on an unwarranted connection between technical knowledge and formal education.

[keonheecho]

Hi, I wanted to clear some things up about (E) if possible. Is it really the case that (E) does not occur? Although Frank does question Maria's conclusion, the conclusion is not about Edison right? And the answer choice states that he fails to criticize/question any statements about Edison. None of what Frank says seems to criticize/question anything Maria says specifically about Edison. I hope I'm not reading too deep into this...

Also, I have another question about (E). Even if it were the case that Frank fails to criticize any statements about Edison, would that necessarily be a flaw? Frank is trying to weaken, or at least narrow the scope of Maria's argument...Can't that be done without touching any of the premises, which is the only part of the argument that explicitly mentions Edison?

[rinagoldfield]

Hi keonheecho,

You bring up some great points. You write that “Frank is trying to weaken, or at least narrow the scope of Maria's argument...Can't that be done without touching any of the premises, which is the only part of the argument that explicitly mentions Edison?” Exactly! You are correct. Frank’s is trying to weaken Maria’s logic, not attack her premises.

Frank does not criticize anything Maria says specifically about Edison. But, that’s ok, for exactly the reason you gave. As a result, (E) does not point out a flaw in Frank’s argument, since it is not necessary for him to attack Maria’s statements about Edison.

Does that clarify things? I’m not sure if I’m missing a question-within-your-question here.

[stacksdoe]

I wanted to add something else too. While I would argue that Frank does "criticizes" Maria's statements about Edison as (E) points out, albeit circuitously, (A) hits the nub i.e. the central or main flaw. Which leads me to point out, and someone can correct me if I err, sometimes there will be more then one flaw/weak spot in a "flaw", "criticism", or "weaken" question, thus two components are typical of the correct answer choices: they either point out the major flaw, OR, only one of the choices will point out a flaw that exist.

What do y'all falks think?

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Premise : Since Edison's time there have been many new developments in technology
Intermediate conclusion: You need much more extensive contributions today
Conclusion: to make significant contributions today you need much more extensive technical knowledge than was needed then.

Takes for granted that the additional technical knowledge that is needed today to make contributions must be acquired through formal training. Perhaps in can be acquired through another means e.g., working in the field/laboratory.


(A) Bingo
(B) Descriptively accurate given the limited scope of the stimulus, but it does not describe the erroneous part of the reasoning.
(C) Descriptively inaccurate, it doesn't rely on using "crucial" differently, it's used in the same way by both agents/
(D) Descriptively inaccurate, he doesn't presume this.
(E) Descriptively accurate, but the fact that Frank fails to dispute the veracity of Maria's premises isn't why his retort is flawed.

[Marky Mark]

A. Frank takes for granted that technical knowledge somehow requires formal education. This is the flaw, his unsupported assumption.
B. I disagree with the first post on the forum, B states he does not consider changes in "formal education." Frank does acknowledge new developments in technology, but not in formal education.
C. They use "crucial" in the same way.
D. Irrelevant to Frank's argument and therefore irrelevant to Frank's flaw.
E. Frank's main flaw is his assumption that technical knowledge requires formal education (unsupported argument). I think answer E. just misses the main point of Frank's argument. (I find this happens A LOT in wrong answers; the answer just doesn't match the argument at hand)