Q6 - The notion that one might

[rdown2b]

I was able to pick B but still am not completly sure why its better that A. Can someone tell me why?

[timmydoeslsat]

This is a parallel question.

The stimulus gives us a core that looks like this:

Conclusion: You can't be justified in behaving irrationally.

Evidence for this conclusion:

If action is justified ---> Then behaving rationally

If behaving irrationally ---> then it is unjustified.


Answer choice B:

Conclusion: One can't intend to do an accident.

Evidence for this conclusion:

accidental --> not intentional

intentional ---> not accidental


Answer choice A:

Conclusion: Representatives of the law should not commit crimes.

Evidence for this conclusion:

If Reps of law commit crimes ---> then they'll be ineffective in preventing crime.

If effective in preventing crime ---> reps of law don't commit crimes.

Do you see the distinction? This answer choice does not give us this dichotomy of definitions, where one definition necessitates that you are NOT something else.

This answer choice with the reps of law is bringing in a principle of sorts about what reps of law SHOULD do. And they state they SHOULD not commit crimes because they will be ineffective in preventing crime. So? We would need another statement to justify their conclusion, such as reps of law must be effective at preventing crime.

Maybe they are no longer effective at preventing crime, but that does not give the author a valid right to conclude what they should or should not do.

[giladedelman]

Yes, nice explanation there! In general, watch out for this distinction between descriptive statements and normative statements. Descriptive statements just tell us what is or is not true; normative statements tell us what should or should not happen. It's easy to overlook, but these are completely different types of statements!

[liu.cm.1]

Hello, I see why B is the correct answer but can someone explain to me why the answer is not C?

This was the logic that I got from this answer choice:

If good life ---> then not unhappy
If unhappy ----> not living good life

Is it because another party " the neighbors" is mentioned and not mentioned in the original argument?

Thank you!

[maryadkins]

(C) is wrong because it's about what the neighbors are seeing. What if what the neighbors are seeing isn't what's actually true? Be on the lookout for subjective statements like these (what the neighbors see) masquerading as objective statements (what's fact).

(D) doesn't describe a logical flaw. It just makes an argument that doctors can't be objective when it comes to themselves.

(E) is another "ought"--a normative statement (see Gilad's point below). It even throws in the word "unethical"--definitely wrong!

[tzyc]

Although the question stem does not say it contains a flaw, it's kind of a circular reasoning, correct?
I thought the reasoning (The second sentence)...the second one timmy wrote (If behaving irrationally→then it is unjustified) is what the conclusion says...
By the way, is the second evidence of timmy's post the contrapositive of "If action is justified→Then behaving rationally"? Or does the stimulus contains both evidence? (I only found one...)
Sorry if I overlookd something...

[mkd000]

I realize this is not an Assumption or Flaw question, but for the sake of trying to teach myself to get better at understanding assumptions, I've been looking at assumptions of most arguments in LR that I have encountered.

This stimulus has got me very confused... I think it is the structure of the stimulus combined with the conditionals. Can someone help me out with figuring this one out? Thanks.

[maryadkins]

Would love to, but I'm not sure what you're asking for?

Various posters have broken down the argument in the thread above...if you want to take a stab at doing it on your own and have one of us weigh in on it, feel free!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Reasoning of argument:

J --> ~ irrational
------------------------------------------------
not the case that (Justified and Irrational)

Typical circular argument.

(A) Conclusion mismatch. The conclusion here is perscriptive, the one in the original argument is descriptive.
(B) Bingo.

Spilling ---> ~ Accident
------------------------------------
not the case (Spill and Accident)

(C) The logical structure of conclusion matches the one presented it the original argument. However this argument distorts the premise-conclusion relationship in the original argument, by mentioning an idea that was present in the premises (neighbours seeing that one is unhappy) that absent from the conclusion. The original argument is circular, meaning everything mentioned in the premises is mentioned in the conclusion and the conclusion does not introduce any new ideas.
(E) Conclusion mistmatch. The conclusion in this argument like in (A) is perscriptive, the one in the original argument is descriptive.

[Jesslxh]

I just need to double check the conditional relationship for this question.



the stimulus:

J ----> ~BJ
---------------------
BI ----> ~J contrapositive
J ----> ~BJ


Answer choice B:

SA -----> ~I
-----------------
I ------> ~SA contrapositive
SA ------> ~I

Is that how they match up to each other? The same circular reasoning employed in both argument?


Thanks!