Q7 - DataCom, a company that filed

[tamwaiman]

The flaw is that the conclusion erroneously makes a causation relationship--maybe filing many patents is not the reason why DataCom is more successful than others, i.e., the argument confuses two facts as causation relationship.

Assuming that the technological innovativeness indicates these patents, I don't know why (B) is wrong, (although (D) is correct.)

Thanks.

[demetri.blaisdell]

I agree with the first part of your analysis, but I'm not so sure about the "i.e." The flaw is the assumption of a causal relationship (you are totally right to say that something else could be responsible for the success). Is that the same as confusing the two things? Confusing two terms might look like this:

Revenue (money you take in) for company X decreased last year. Therefore, profit decreased.

Here, we might say that the author confused the two terms revenue and profit. But that is not the same as assuming a causal relationship between two distinct ideas (number of patents and success).

(D) is a clear statement of the flaw: the author ignored the possibility of an alternate cause.

(A) is not the flaw. The argument attempts to prove the connection; it doesn't presuppose it.

(B) is wrong for two reasons. Innovativeness is not a language match for number of patents filed (I think you saw this). Even if we suppose it is, though, the argument isn't confusing the two---it is implying a causal relationship between them.

(C) is clearly out of scope. We have no interest in comparing different competitors to each other.

(E) is almost the opposite of the flaw. In fact, the argument is making a generalization from what could be a special case (meaning that some other reason caused it other than number of patents filed).

I hope that clears this one up. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[hana.kid]

While I understand why (D) is the correct choice, I'm having a hard time understanding (A). Could someone please give me an example of what (A) would look like in an argument?

[gaheexlee]

I diagrammed this question and got:

Premise: Datacom filed more patents -> Was more financially successful

Conclusion: Datacom filed more patents -> Was more financially successful

So I thought this was circular reasoning and initially chose A, thinking that was what A was saying. But I ended up choosing (D) because I felt that (A) isn't actually referring to circular reasoning.

(A) says that the stimulus presupposes about the relationship between the financial successes of Datacom's competitors and the number of patents they, the competitors filed. But we want a relationship between Datacom's financial successes/reasons for that, and, Datacom's competitors' financial successes/reasons for that.

Is this correct or I reading too closely into the stimulus?

[maryadkins]

While I understand why (D) is the correct choice, I'm having a hard time understanding (A). Could someone please give me an example of what (A) would look like in an argument?

(A) is a weird one! And by that I mean, I agree that it's hard to make sense of. It's also not usually the correct answer, although it's often an answer choice. It basically means circular reasoning: the assumption IS the conclusion. Doesn't make sense? Yup.

But there's another problem, which gaheexlee noted, which is that it misconstrues the conclusion of the argument, anyway. The argument is about DATACOM, not Datacom's competitors, which really only come up in the premise!

I diagrammed this question and got:

Premise: Datacom filed more patents -> Was more financially successful

Conclusion: Datacom filed more patents -> Was more financially successful

So I thought this was circular reasoning and initially chose A, thinking that was what A was saying. But I ended up choosing (D) because I felt that (A) isn't actually referring to circular reasoning.

But your diagram is off...the conclusion adds a piece, which is causation.

Premise: DataCom was X and Y last year.
Conclusion: Y caused X.

So the actual argument isn't circular reasoning.

[pacificbonito]

Revisited. Sorry if this has been adequately explained elsewhere or already here and I just didn't understand.

I was hoping if someone could give a better analysis of answer a. (I'll try and break down my idea of what it means)
:
PRESUPPOSES [what is sets out to demonstrate about the] (a) relationship between the financial success of DataCom's competitors and the number of patents they filed.

1.) PRESUPPOSES A RELATIONSHIP --- of patents/financial success.

The argument is: "It is therefore likely that DataCom owed its greater financial success to the fact that it filed many patents last year."

So yes, there can be other reasons for success other then patents or a large number of them. *BUT*, IS IT NOT the presupposition of a relationship between financial success and patent number that precipitated the overlooking of other factors to begin with??

Is D.) more accurate? Is it that D.) is the reason and that A.) is (or could be) the cause of the reason, D.)?
Having thought about it, I'm going to guess A is the reason for D and D is the reason for the bad argument. Please confirm.

So I got the question wrong choosing A. But why? I have heard a lot about 'circular logic', but is that the issue? Perhaps it is the manner of the relationship... maybe in reality there is a negative or inverse correlation between patents and profit, with more patents meaning less profit, eh? Maybe that is why a.) is wrong? I mean, isn't every act of excluding contributing factors a result of some form of supposition anyways?

I have gained great benefit from this forum, probably should wait a day or two from now on till making posts, but after just marking it wrong, I reaally want to know for sure so next time it is right!

Thanks in advance, and sorry if I made some huge oversight, at least you might get a laugh.

[crazyapple11]

I understand D is the best answer. However, D says "it is likely" filing many patents caused the greater financial success. For me, the "likely" shows that the argument does not exclude other possibilities. Any help? Thank you.