rdown2b
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 29
Joined: July 05th, 2011
 
 
 

Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by rdown2b Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:59 am

Can some one help me. I thought A looked pretty good.
 
timmydoeslsat
Thanks Received: 832
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: June 20th, 2011
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by timmydoeslsat Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:24 pm

This is a parallel the flaw question.

We want to identify the flaw in the stimulus and hunt for this flaw in one of our answer choices.

The core of this argument can be seen as this:

The school principal said that bad teaching caused student failures.

+

Then, in a short period of time, the failures stopped!

-----> THEREFORE...

Teaching improved at the school.


Do those two premises necessarily entail the truth of the conclusion? No! Here is why.

The failures stopping in a short period of time is simply a correlation. We have no direct evidence of causation in this case. Yet, the principal chooses one!

There can be alternative causes that produce that same effect. Perhaps a change in the lunch menu or maybe all the kids were given laptops. Or maybe the teachers just fudged the numbers and passed everybody with a pulse! Does that mean that teaching improved? No!

Answer choices:

A) This answer choice does not mirror the flaw.
This one goes like this:

A causes B.

They stopped the action of A.

They saw the effect of not B.

I don't really believe this is a flaw. More of a who cares? The nutritionist concludes that they stopped gaining weight, but the nutritionist is not implicating a particular cause as to why the weight was lost.

It could be possible that it was the absence of causal factor (A), but perhaps all of the team members were taking a medicine that caused them to gain weight and they happened to stop that medication during the same time they stopped overeating.

B) This one can be dismissed with one detail read. Manager concludes working environment improved? Detail creep of going from filing complaints...complaints stopping...work environment improved? SHIFT of WORDS! Eliminate.

C) The nutritionist in this problem, just as in A, does not implicate a cause of the result. They are just reporting the results. This does not mirror the flaw in the stimulus where the principal does more than just report a result, he implicates a cause from a correlation.

D) Right answer!

Mangers posits that workers that filed complaints do not have enough to do.

- Short period of time...complaints stop.

- Manager concludes that they are now productively filling time.

Can you really conclude that the workers are now PRODUCTIVELY filling time? Maybe the workers eventually just gave up with complaints. They still check their facebook at work 5 hours a day, but they gave up on the complaints.

That is one alternative cause of the effect of no more complaints filed.

E) Same issue as A and C. The nutritionist is not implicating cause. Just reporting results.
 
kopoku.08
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 9
Joined: February 14th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that student failures ar

by kopoku.08 Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:16 am

I got this right but i don't see how the flaw. it seems like the first statement is the original premise and the last two two statements are the contrapositive. Answer D appeared to be the same thing which is why i chose it.
 
timmydoeslsat
Thanks Received: 832
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: June 20th, 2011
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that student failures ar

by timmydoeslsat Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:28 pm

kopoku.08 wrote:I got this right but i don't see how the flaw. it seems like the first statement is the original premise and the last two two statements are the contrapositive. Answer D appeared to be the same thing which is why i chose it.


There is a difference between using a contrapositive in conditional reasoning and attempting to prove cause.

If A then B.

We know that:

~B ---> ~A via the contrapositive


This stimulus states that the principal believes A is causing B.

When the effect of B stopped, he concluded that A was gone.

However, this does not prove his initial causal claim. We do not know that A was really causing B, it was just his opinion.
 
disguise_sky
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 17
Joined: June 26th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by disguise_sky Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:30 am

Hi guys. I have a problem with this question.
In the stimulus, the school principal insisted that there was a casual relationship between teaching and students' failure.
But in (D), "the manager insisted that the workers who filed complaints did not have enough to do". It seems that the manager didn't think there was a casual relationship. In fact, when I was doing the test, I interpreted his words as a conditional relaionship, namely "file complaint --> not enough to do".
Thus, I think (D) does not parallel the stimulus so perfectly. Am I right?
Thanks in advance.
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 165
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 844
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by WaltGrace1983 Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:00 pm

disguise_sky wrote:Hi guys. I have a problem with this question.
In the stimulus, the school principal insisted that there was a casual relationship between teaching and students' failure.
But in (D), "the manager insisted that the workers who filed complaints did not have enough to do". It seems that the manager didn't think there was a casual relationship. In fact, when I was doing the test, I interpreted his words as a conditional relaionship, namely "file complaint --> not enough to do".
Thus, I think (D) does not parallel the stimulus so perfectly. Am I right?
Thanks in advance.


My thoughts exactly. Does anyone have an answer to this?
User avatar
 
rinagoldfield
Thanks Received: 270
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 407
Joined: December 13th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by rinagoldfield Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:25 pm

Great discussion, all!

Approach “match the flawed reasoning” questions by boiling down the original argument, putting the flaw in your own words, and using a process of elimination to knock of wrong answers.

Here we have a case of circular reasoning:

Superintendent says T causes F
F changes

Superintendent concludes that T must have changed, too.


The superintendent concludes that no change in F could have happened without a change in T. Put another way, he circles back to his premise that T leads to F. The right answer choice will also circle back to the original premise.

(A) does not match. This choice states that O cause WG, and then O changes. But in the original argument, the second thing (the “effect”) changes. O is the cause, not the effect. Out.

(B) contains a term shift.

(C) has no causal argument whatsoever.

(E) is similar to (A). It describes a change in the cause, not the effect.

(D) is correct. This one is tricky! You guys are right that the premise does not explicitly describe a causal argument. However, the same logical error is committed. An effect* changes (the complaints go away), and the author assumes that the thing leading to that effect must’ve changed, too.

These “match the flawed reasoning” questions are hard because often the right answer is not a perfect match. Remember to look for spirit matches, not identical matches.

*Does it make sense to say that workers did not have enough to do BECAUSE they filed complaints? No, it does not. Rather, the manager is essentially saying that “these lazy workers have so much time on their hands, so they complain.” In other words, time causes complaints.
 
mzm13
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 3
Joined: May 25th, 2018
Location: BOS
 
 
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by mzm13 Fri May 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Can I ask a question about how can I present cause and effect in conditional logic way? who --> who ?
 
DavidH327
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 21
Joined: December 17th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by DavidH327 Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:18 pm

rinagoldfield wrote:Great discussion, all!

Approach “match the flawed reasoning” questions by boiling down the original argument, putting the flaw in your own words, and using a process of elimination to knock of wrong answers.

Here we have a case of circular reasoning:

Superintendent says T causes F
F changes

Superintendent concludes that T must have changed, too.


The superintendent concludes that no change in F could have happened without a change in T. Put another way, he circles back to his premise that T leads to F. The right answer choice will also circle back to the original premise.

(A) does not match. This choice states that O cause WG, and then O changes. But in the original argument, the second thing (the “effect”) changes. O is the cause, not the effect. Out.

(B) contains a term shift.

(C) has no causal argument whatsoever.

(E) is similar to (A). It describes a change in the cause, not the effect.

(D) is correct. This one is tricky! You guys are right that the premise does not explicitly describe a causal argument. However, the same logical error is committed. An effect* changes (the complaints go away), and the author assumes that the thing leading to that effect must’ve changed, too.

These “match the flawed reasoning” questions are hard because often the right answer is not a perfect match. Remember to look for spirit matches, not identical matches.

*Does it make sense to say that workers did not have enough to do BECAUSE they filed complaints? No, it does not. Rather, the manager is essentially saying that “these lazy workers have so much time on their hands, so they complain.” In other words, time causes complaints.


For D, "not have enough to do" is a cause of "file complaints"?
and effect (file complaints) is negated in the second premise leading to the conclusion that cause (not have enough to do) must have changed??
I was thinking of the opposite file complaints --> not have enough to do and I thought the premise was negating cause leading to negating effect...
Could you please explain how would "workers who filed complaints did not have enough to do" implies a causality??

Thank you.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 2780
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q12 - The school principal insisted that

by ohthatpatrick Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:12 pm

We would have to use common sense to interpret the causality in (D), as well as some of these other answers, such as (B) and (C).

in (B), common sense would say
"having too many tasks" caused them to "file a complaint"

in (C),
"imagining they had gained weight" caused them to "insist they had gained weight"

in (D),
"not having enough to do" caused them to "file a complaint"

In (D), the employees are complaining about the opposite of (B).
(B): This job sucks. We have too much to do.
(D): This job sucks. We have too little to do.


Is there any common sense causal logic to the idea that
"filing a complaint" causes you to "not have enough to do"?

It's surprising and annoying that the correct answer doesn't use explicit causal language, but we're looking for the best available, and the two that DO use explicit causal language (A and E) have the same structural problem:
P1: Someone concludes that X is the reason for Y.
P2: X stops.
Conc: Someone concludes that Y has stopped.

We're trying to match an argument that had this structure:
P1: Someone concludes that X is the reason for Y.
P2: Y stops.
Conc: Someone concludes that X has stopped.

So we have to "force" causality on B, C, and D in order to figure out whether it could match the structure of the original.