Q3 - Efforts to create a more

[kimlaw24]

I'm completely stumped on this one, can someone walk me through this problem? Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

This question basically wants us to Describe the Argument. When they ask "the scientist's argument proceeds by ...", they're asking "how did this person make her argument?"

Ultimately, the only standard of right/wrong when we read each answer choice is "Did this happen? Did the author do this?"

We read these arguments for the conclusion and premise, and if possible we characterize in some way the type of evidence, type of reasoning, or path the author took to reach her conclusion.

For example, if we read this unrealistically simple argument:
Peter: Dogs are either happy eaters or sad eaters. Since this dog is not a happy eater, he must be a sad eater.

We might think of the structure of this argument as
i. D's are either H or S.
ii. This D is not H.
iii. Thus, this D is S.

The correct answer could be
B) eliminating a competing alternative

What the heck does that mean? Well by eliminating the possibility that the dog in question was happy, the author was able to prove that the dog in question was sad.

Back to Q3 ...

Our author is ultimately trying to defend the effort to create a more egalitarian (more equal) society.

She says people wrongly criticize this effort because they think the effort will result in X (more conformity). But, our author insists, just the opposite is true. By striving to create a more equal society, we'd actually get ~X (more diversity).

So our answer will probably deal with something to the effect of, "showing how the anticipated consequences of a certain action will in fact result in the opposite of those anticipated consequences".

No need for a precise prediction; we just have to judge whether we can match the wording of an answer choice to the argument.

A) did the scientist undermine a view? Hmmm. I guess she was trying to undermine the critics' view. Did she show that the accepting the critics' view leads to undesirable consequences? No. She showed that her view, in spite of what critics think, would lead to desirable consequences. Eliminate.

B) did she rebut an objection? Sure, she rebutted the critics' objection to creating a more equal society. Did she attack an assumption on which the objection is based? Sure. The 2nd sentence talks about what is presumed by the critics. The 3rd sentence shoots that idea down. This matches. Keep it.

C) did she attack a view? Sure, she attacked the critics' view. Did she accuse the critics of being motivated only by self-interest? No, not at all. Eliminate.

D) this describes a WHOLE to PART argument. This is a recurring flaw. It doesn't match up with the paragraph at all.

E) Is there an apparent counterexample? No. Examples and/or counterexamples are specific people, places, dates, things. They aren't general, conceptual ideas. There are no specific people, places, dates, things named in the paragraph, so this can't possible match.

So we pick (B) because it matches. It obviously wasn't the phrasing I would have predicted, but all I have to worry about is if I can match the wording of (B) to the argument, and I definitely can.

Hope this helps.

[ssfriend.88]

The argument proceeds by stating a claim against efforts toward an egalitarian society. Concluding that the claim is not so. Supporting the conclusion by highlighting a different, more optimistic outcome of the egalitarian society (though subtle shift of wording).

A - Nowhere, does the argument claim that undesirable consequences would result. Eliminate.
B - Attacking the assumption? Well, the argument claims that society would achieve greater equality and diversity. Since the initial claim being argued against stated that society would become uniform, it seems reasonable to assume this is not diverse. Keep for now.
C - Completely unsubstantiated. Strong language with only, and self-interest isn't relevant.
D - Part of whole argument?? Not even close.
E - More like the opposite, the argument uses a counterexample to undermine the initial claim. And we can't really state the claim is universal.

P.O.E. leads to B, which is fairly well supported, if not quite what i was expecting.

[lbug7575]

Translating all the mucky conditional logic in (C) is a pain, and it eats up time. So don't do it unless you have to! In this situation, the original argument has a critical either/or setup. Any answer choice that doesn't contain that is an automatic out!
So we pick (B) because it matches. It obviously wasn't the phrasing I would have predicted, but all I have to worry about is if I can match the wording of (B) to the argument, and I definitely can.