Q10 - Fred argued that, since

[celene0007]

For this question, I selected D instead of C. I do not understand why C describes the flaw better than D. Is there something I am missing?

Some insight would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

[tamwaiman]

Fred is right in one aspect--most successful directors work with famous actor--and thus argues that a successful director Katheleen has probably worked with famous actors. However, Kathleen is a documentary director, who rarely works with famous actor. --> (C) Fred fails to take relevant information (documentary is an exception) into account.

(D) Fred does not assume that ALL successful directors work with famous actors. (which in the stimulus is MOST)

[demetri.blaisdell]

Good explanation, tamwaiman.

The key here is to read Fred's conclusion carefully. He said since she's a successful director, "she has probably worked with famous actors." If he had said "definitely," I would want to choose (D). Given the way he phrased his conclusion, he did not assume that all successful directors work with stars.

(C) is modest, but it's exactly how the author takes apart Fred's argument. Yes Kathleen is a successful director, but she's part of a subgroup (documentary filmmakers) that obviously don't work with stars. So Fred has failed to consider this relevant info.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri

[celene0007]

Thank you both for your responses. I see now why I missed this question. I keep forgetting to read for small details like the one above. Thank you.

[charmayne.palomba]

PT46, S3, Q10 (Analyze Argument (procedure))

(C) is correct.

In this question, the author is criticizing Fred’s argument. Because we are being asked to analyze the argument, we want to have it crystal clear in our heads before moving on to the answer choices. The first sentence gives us part of Fred’s argument: Kathleen is a successful film director --> she has probably worked with famous actors. Then we get a "but," which we think trigger’s the author’s rebuttal. Instead, the author goes on to fill out Fred’s argument a bit more, by providing another premise: most successful film directors work with famous actors. Knowing that, we can see that Fred’s full argument is:

Kathleen is a successful FD
+
most successful FDs work with FA

--> Kathleen has probably worked with FAs

Seems like pretty sound reasoning, but the author claims the conclusion isn’t warranted. Why not? Because Kathleen only works on documentary films, and those directors rarely work with famous actors. That definitely casts some doubt on Fred’s argument. While his argument may be true generally, it doesn’t hold in Kathleen’s specific case.

(A) It seems like we know all we need to know about Kathleen to determine whether or not it’s likely that she has worked with famous actors. We know she’s a famous film director, and furthermore that she only directs documentary films. The author doesn’t say anything about missing information.

(B) Careful! Is the author making such a definite claim? The author is not demonstrating that Fred’s claim is untrue (which she could have done by showing that Kathleen had not worked with famous actors) but rather that his claim is unwarranted: that is, unjustified by his premises. Furthermore, in an argument full of "probably" and "most," be wary of absolutes like this.

(D) Has the author shown that Fred erroneously made such an absolute claim? No: the author quotes Fred as saying that most"”not all"”successful film directors work with famous actors.

(E) The author acknowledges that Fred is right in supposing that most successful film directors work with famous actors. The author agrees with that premise, and is certainly not calling its validity into question.

So we are left with (C), the correct answer. The relevant information Fred has failed to take into account is that while Kathleen is a successful film director, she is a particular type of director (of documentaries) that rarely work with famous actors. Fred has mistakenly ascribed a characteristic (working with famous actors) of the larger group (successful film directors) to a member of that group, without considering important information that makes it unlikely that Kathleen has that characteristic.

[terpsfball09]

I didn't think C was right because it says in the stimulus that Fred does take the information into account. It states, "For, as he knows..." So I ended up picking D due to time reasons and that it appeared to be the MOST right.

Is this just an abnormal answer choice? Because I feel like it is contradicted in the stimulus.

[uhdang]

I didn't think C was right because it says in the stimulus that Fred does take the information into account. It states, "For, as he knows..." So I ended up picking D due to time reasons and that it appeared to be the MOST right.

Is this just an abnormal answer choice? Because I feel like it is contradicted in the stimulus.

Even if he knew that Kathleen is a documentary director, regardless, his argument's reasoning for claiming her probable work experience with famous actors is because she is a successful film director NOT because Fred knows that she is a documentary film director and a documentary film director rarely works with famous film actors. As far as reasoning goes, whether Fred regards Kathleen's information or not is irrelevant.

Besides, even if Fred takes into account about Kathleen, that doesn't mean that Fred was assuming "all successful film directors work with famous actors."