Q22 - If relativity theory is correct, no object can travel

[daijob]

Hi,

So I think the stimulus's basic logic is:
If A is true, then B will not happen.
Yet B happens.
Thus either A is wrong or in fact B did not happen (although they think it did).

And C follows this pattern...
A=modern medicine
B=no oxygen

Is this correct?

Thank you,

[ohthatpatrick]

Wow, I can't believe we didn't have a thread for this question yet. Thanks for bringing it to the forum?

I think the abstract template you gave us for the stimulus was 80% on point.

I don't think we can fairly say that the second sentence is saying "B happened". It's really a He Said / She Said argument.

I would probably sum up the original as:

p1: according to X, A never happens.
p2: according to Y, A does sometimes happen.
Conc: If X is correct, then either Y was wrong or what Y saw wasn't really the counterexample it seemed to be.

The structural features I'd want in a matching answer would be
- Thing 1 and Thing 2 fighting about whether A can happen.
- A conditional conclusion that says "If Thing 1 is right, then you have two options for what to think about Thing 2."

This question is famous (in our class) for demonstrating The Conclusion Shortcut on Matching questions.

Since the answer choices to Matching questions are so long and dense, it sometimes worth it to JUST find the conclusion on the 1st pass and see if the answer choice even has a shot.

Because our original conclusion is such a particular type of claim, a conditional statement with an either/or in the consequence, it'll be pretty easy to search for.

(When the conclusion on a Matching question is bland and hard to describe, you normally find that there's a "signature" premise ingredient, like an either/or, conditional chain, most statement, etc.)

(A) conc: English more likely descended from FU. (this 'more likely the explanation' type claim is a bad match for a conditional + either/or)

(B) conc: The defendant is guilty. (this is just a statement of fact. There's definitely no conditional here)

(C) conc: IF Mod Mec is right, EITHER ____ OR _____
(keep it)

(D) conc: burial place more likely to be Siwa. (This is just like choice A)

(E) conc: the universe will stop expanding (this is like choice B, a statement of fact, not a conditional)

So (C) is the only answer whose conclusion matches the form of the original. We don't want to PICK it just based on that, but we should START reading (C) fully and if it locks in, we'll pick it. If it fails, we'll reconsider the other ones that seemed to be poorer matches.

Do we have two people fighting about whether A happens?

Yes, last time it was Relativity vs. Quantum theory. This time it's Modern Medicine vs. A Reliable Witness.

MM thinks you can't survive w/o oxygen for more than a few minutes.
ARW thinks that someone actually DID survive for more than a few minutes.

Does our conclusion say, "If first dude is right, second dude is wrong or second dude is confused?"

Yes. "Didn't suffer any lack of oxygen" shows that the shaman's survival wouldn't really have contradicted MM's rule.

Similarly, "travel backwards through time" shows that QT's tachyon prediction wouldn't really have contradicted RT's rule about traveling forward in time faster than light.

(E) is by far the trappiest answer here, as it starts with the same word as the original and has a similarly astronomical topic. Always beware The Topic Trap on Matching questions.

Hope this helps.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

According to R.Theory, objects cannot travel forward in time at greater speed than speed of light

According to quantum mechanics, tachyon travels at a greater speed than light

-------------------------

R.Theory correct ---> ~Tachyon travels at a greater speed than light OR tachyons travels backwards in time


(A) Conclusion is not a conditional statement and thus necessarily doesn't have the compound conditional that the original argument does. The premises are not conditional statements either.
(B) Premise and conclusion mismatch. One of the premises includes a compound conditional statement and the original argument does not. Also the conclusion does not have the compound conditional.
(C) Bingo.

According to Modern medicine, one cannot survive without oxygen for more than a few mins.

According to a reliable witness, survived an entire week buried.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern medicine correct ----> reliable witness mistaken or the shaman's brain didn't suffer from lack of oxygen.

(D) Conclusion mismatch, it's missing the compound conditional component.
(E) same as D