Q8 - City council member: The Senior

[towardvision]

I knew that C describes a flaw in the argument. But I was thinking perhaps too much and thought that D is also a flaw.

I thought that this sentence contains contradiction.

- will will find ourselves granting many other exceptions. . . some of which will be UNDESERVED.

I thought giving exceptions to undeserved cases is absurd.
Is this an example of contradiction?
But there aren't multiple premises contradicting one another
as D says.

When attacking a question that asks to find <the most vulnerable to criticism>, is it possible that there are several answer choices that describe flaws in the argument but the right answer is the one describing the biggest, major flaw? Or is it always that there is the one, right answer describing a flaw?


Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ah!!! I know why answer choice (C) is not so appealing for you!!!

Let's look at the following situation. Suppose there is an argument that gives the following claims

A ---> B
B ---> C
----------
C ---> A

If the question were to ask you to identify the error in the reasoning we could say that the argument mistakes a sufficient condition for one that is necessary. But how would you do it topically? Such as "the argument takes for granted that..." or "the argument fails to consider that..."

Well, we would say the argument

takes for granted that all C's are A's
or
fails to consider that some C's are not A's

For an example of this check out PT25, S4, Q23

Notice that "takes for granted" and "presumes" have identical meanings on the LSAT. So we could say that the argument is flawed in that it simply assumed it's conclusion to be true.

In the question about the Senior Guild, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, and so one way you could describe the error in reasoning is that it assumes it's conclusion to be true - exactly as answer choice (C) states!

Lets look at the incorrect answers while we're here:

(A) is the most tempting of the incorrect answers (students are always asking about it). The key is that there is no argument that is distorted. There is a request that is made, and yes the council member does discuss the consequences of the request, rather just the request itself, but that's not necessarily distorting an argument. An argument has both evidence and a conclusion, which the Senior Guild has not offered.
(B) is not the case. The claim is dismissed because of the consequences of allowing the claim to be accepted.
(D) is not the case. The premises are all consistent with each other.
(E) is not the case. The argument does actually distinguish between the two since it discusses both.

Hope that helps, and let me know of guys have further questions on this one!

[towardvision]

hmm... this is how I understand the argument.

1. grant this exception> grant many other exceptions to this
ordinance
2. grant many other exceptions to this ordnance> grant exceptions to all manners of other city ordinances
(which he assumes to be anarchy)

conclusion: So if we don't grant this exception, we can avoid anarchy.

A>B
B>C
----
~A> ~C

This is how I see the argument. So I guess a logical problem is mistaken negation. There could be other things that would cause anarchy.

I don't think he just assumes the conclusion to be true. The problem seems to be that he doesn't provide
any proof why A will cause B, and B will cause C.
The city council can grant exception to this particular case
and not grant exceptions to others. Why does it have to
grant exceptions to all the others, especially undeserved ones?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

hmm... this is how I understand the argument.

1. grant this exception> grant many other exceptions to this
ordinance
2. grant many other exceptions to this ordnance> grant exceptions to all manners of other city ordinances
(which he assumes to be anarchy)

conclusion: So if we don't grant this exception, we can avoid anarchy.

A>B
B>C
----
~A> ~C

You have the conclusion reversed. Notice you stated that the conclusion is, "if we don't grant this exception, we can avoid anarchy." It should be, "if want to avoid anarchy, we cannot grant this exception." We have this indicated twofold, with "if" introducing the sufficient condition and "must" introducing the necessary condition.

Let me know if you still see it differently though.

Also, we always grant arguments their evidence.

The problem seems to be that he doesn't provide
any proof why A will cause B, and B will cause C.

So it's okay that the argument does not offer proof why A will lead to B, and B would lead to C.

Hope that helps!

[towardvision]

Ahh I thought I almost had it.

It should be, "if want to avoid anarchy, we cannot grant this exception."

So that seems to be ~C> ~A.

Should I interpret the conclusion "If we are to prevent anarchy in our city, we must deny the request" as
C>A? I guess he is saying that if there is anarchy, it means
the council has granted the exception. If I understand this way, I see how this is about assuming the conclusion to be true.
I guess I'm trapped by "prevent" and "deny."

For example, if you want to avoid getting fat, you must not eat chocolate"
So that's FAT> Chocolate?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

For example, if you want to avoid getting fat, you must not eat chocolate"
So that's FAT> Chocolate?

What are you using to organize your terms? "If" introduces a sufficient condition, which places "avoid fat" on the left of the conditional. So it should say

~F --> ~C

F = get fat, C = eat chocolate

Your way is the Negation of the statement.

F ---> C

Let me know if you still need help seeing this one though!

[irini101]

Hi mshermn, could you please give an example of "distort and argument then attack the distorted argument"? So that I could have deeper understanding of (A).

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi mshermn, could you please give an example of "distort and argument then attack the distorted argument"? So that I could have deeper understanding of (A).

This is referring to a fairly common (though not on the LSAT) error in reasoning that would be discussed in nearly every "intro to logic" course offered at universities - typically in the philosophy department.

It refers to an error in reasoning frequently called Straw Man. This is when you have someone attacking an argument by restating the argument in different words to twist its meaning into something more easily undermined. It's called a straw man, because like a man made of straw that is very easy to destroy, so too is the distorted view of the original argument.

Imagine if you were in a debate with someone who then started saying something like, "so... what you're really is saying is..." and then you're like, "no! that's not what I'm saying at all!" That would be an example of the common flaw called Straw Man that represents a distorted view that is then attacked, because it's easier to pick on than the original argument.

Does that answer your question?

[vik]

Would A be correct if it said, "Distorts a possible consequence of the request"?

[vik]

Matt,

I think you are wrong. The Senior Guild does make an argument. It is a very simple argument that has only a conclusion (We want an exception to the ordinance) and an implicit premise (Because we say so), similar to the implicit premise in arguments made by every religion.

However, the CCM does not distort the SG's argument. He never says the SG has not asked for an exception. The CCM simply makes his own brand new argument (we should not give the old folks the exception) that is wildly unsupported.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think you are wrong. The Senior Guild does make an argument. It is a very simple argument that has only a conclusion (We want an exception to the ordinance) and an implicit premise (Because we say so), similar to the implicit premise in arguments made by every religion.

You make an interesting point, but without evidence, one cannot have an argument. An argument is by definition one that offers a conclusion that is supported with evidence. Stating an opinion, a suggestion, a request, etc. by itself will not constitute an argument.

One last thing... Careful with your criticism of the city council member's argument. It is supported, just not supported very well.

[vik]

Matt,

Happy New year. You are right. I did not realize an opinion or request is not an argument. And yes, the CCM's argument is supported, by a series of events.

[goriano]

In the question about the Senior Guild, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, and so one way you could describe the error in reasoning is that it assumes it's conclusion to be true - exactly as answer choice (C) states!

I've read this thread numerous times, and I still don't understand why assuming a conclusion to be true is the same thing as assuming one event will lead to a particular causal sequence of events (what C states)

Premises: Grant Senior Guild's exception --> grant other exceptions (some which will be undeserved) --> grant exceptions to all manner of other city ordinances

Conclusion (taking the contrapositive): Grant Senior Guild's exception --> anarchy

The only flaw I can see is the City council member adding "anarchy" to the necessary side of the formal logic chain above. So, if we are to take the premises as given, why does (C) state one event (granting the the Senior Guild's exception) will lead to a casual sequence of events (emphasis on events being PLURAL)? Here, I'm assuming anarchy is ONE event.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I've read this thread numerous times, and I still don't understand why assuming a conclusion to be true is the same thing as assuming one event will lead to a particular causal sequence of events (what C states)

Good question. An error of reasoning relates the gap between the evidence and the conclusion. It describes why the evidence fails to prove the conclusion.

Assumptions (gaps in the reasoning) are frequently identified in the correct answer on Flaw questions. And answer choice (C) simply identifies the assumption of the argument. What was wrong with the argument? It assumed that it's conclusion followed from the evidence.

The argument assumes it's conclusion (one event will lead to a particular causal sequence of events) follows from the evidence.

Does that answer your question?

[aznriceboi17]

Hi Matt, I'm still confused about this point that towardvision brought up:

Ahh I thought I almost had it.

It should be, "if want to avoid anarchy, we cannot grant this exception."

So that seems to be ~C> ~A.

The conclusion of the CCM is that a necessary condition of avoiding anarchy is denying the guild's request: !C => !A, i.e. A => C.

But this is a valid argument of the form:
A => B
B => C
----------
A => C

which seems different than your explanation of the error that is committed:

Ah!!! I know why answer choice (C) is not so appealing for you!!!

Let's look at the following situation. Suppose there is an argument that gives the following claims

A ---> B
B ---> C
----------
C ---> A

If the question were to ask you to identify the error in the reasoning we could say that the argument mistakes a sufficient condition for one that is necessary. But how would you do it topically? Such as "the argument takes for granted that..." or "the argument fails to consider that..."

Well, we would say the argument

takes for granted that all C's are A's
or
fails to consider that some C's are not A's

Did I completely misunderstand your post? Thanks!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, aznriceboi17! Matt is pretty busy, so I thought I'd pop in and address your question!

The post of Matt's that you quote was actually not intended to show the structural defect in this argument. I believe he was just using that other structure as a way to discuss the various ways a flaw might be phrased! In other words, while we might identify a flaw correctly, we can't be married to a particular phrasing for that flaw. The LSAT writers have a variety of syntax choices, and the one they select might fool us into thinking that the answer choice is after something unrelated!

Now, you're totally right that an argument structure of:

A => B
B => C
----------
A => C

totally works!


But our argument looks a bit more like this:

A => B
B => C
----------
A => D

Going along with Matt's earlier point that there are many syntactic ways to skin a flawcat, this might have been expressed as:

the argument presumes that C leads to D

Instead, the answer choice went a bit more generic with "presumes...that one event [C] will lead to a particular causal sequence of events [D]".

Does that help clear things up a bit?

[aznriceboi17]

Ah ok, that makes sense that Matt's example refers to a hypothetical argument different than the one in the stimulus.

I guess the thing I completely missed in all this discussion, to use the same notation as you just did, is that the stimulus only properly showed that we can conclude C ('we will be granting exceptions to all manner of other city ordinances'), but then goes too far and concludes D (anarchy)?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Ah ok, that makes sense that Matt's example refers to a hypothetical argument different than the one in the stimulus.

I guess the thing I completely missed in all this discussion, to use the same notation as you just did, is that the stimulus only properly showed that we can conclude C ('we will be granting exceptions to all manner of other city ordinances'), but then goes too far and concludes D (anarchy)?

Exactly! The city council member is laying out a few "if we do this, then X undesirable thing will happen", and those are premises - I trust that she knows what she's talking about with those. But then the conclusion about ANARCHY!!!1! comes out of left field. Overreaction much?

[lsat2016]

Is this an example of a slippery slope argument??