Q15 - Technological innovation rarely serves

[yama_sekander]

while i understand why d is right, i am wondering why b is wrong? doesnt the author assume that commercially viable technology cannot benefit society as a whole?

[noah]

Thanks for the question!

We're looking at a flaw - so this is an assumption family question and there must be a gap. Let's break down the argument: the conclusion is that tech. innovation rarely serves society's interest. Why? Because the innovators are motivated by greed.

(Note, I've taken some serious liberties in rephrasing things in that - "considerations of personal gain" is quite different than "greed", but often a dumbed-down version serves me better - as long as I remember that I dumbed-down the details, and may need to reconsider them later.)

What's the gap? It's pretty straightforward actually. Who says that if you're not motivated to achieve X, you can't achieve it? Perhaps greedy innovators end up inadvertently helping society. (D) states this in rather abstracted terms. In short, it states that the argument assumes that doing something won't achieve a goal if that wasn't the motivation.

Looking at the wrong answers:

(A) is an impossible answer - we don't evaluate premises!
(B) is the most tempting answer. The easiest way to see why it's incorrect is to notice the shift in focus. The argument is about whether a certain motivation (benefiting society) is required to achieve a certain end (benefiting society), not whether the project is viable. If the project were not commercially viable, the motivation might still be greed (or not), and if the project were commercially viable, it also has no bearing on whether the project benefits society.

My colleague came up with a good analogy for a more complex issue with (B): Mike is rarely cool. Why? Because he cares about being honest. (B) would state "the argument assumes that someone who is cool cannot be honest." A couple of issues: the argument is about whether someone cares about being honest, not whether he or she is honest. Plus, the argument concludes that Mike is rarely cool - that leaves room for a cool person to care about honesty once or twice - (B) is too extreme.

(C) is tricky! But, in the end, we're not concerned with whether the innovation results in personal gain. It's whether innovation motivated by personal gain can result in something other than personal gain benefiting society.

(D) is correct, so don't mess with it.

(E) is strange-looking and out of scope! The "should" is a major warning. The argument is in no way about what people should or should not do.

I hope that clears it up.

[mcrittell]

Noah, can you expound on this please:

(B) would state "the argument assumes that someone who is cool cannot be honest." But the real issue is that the argument assumes that someone who is honest can't be cool.

[noah]

I edited my post to correct and clarify. Tell me if you have any specific questions.

[zainrizvi]

Few questions

1) I thought the sentence structure of "in that they" implied that the personal gain was defined as striving to develop viable technology... guessing my interpretation was wrong?

2) Is assuming that someone who is cool cannot be honest, the same as assuming someone who is honest cannot be cool?

3) always = almost without exception, or not?

[noah]

Interesting questions.

Few questions

1) I thought the sentence structure of "in that they" implied that the personal gain was defined as striving to develop viable technology... guessing my interpretation was wrong?

I think you're more or less correct. It basically is saying, they're greedy, how do we know? They're trying to come up with stuff they can sell.

2) Is assuming that someone who is cool cannot be honest, the same as assuming someone who is honest cannot be cool?

Yes. They're the contrapositive of each other. Note that I edited my post a while back and explained (B) in an another manner.

3) always = almost without exception, or not?

No, "almost without exception" can be considered a "most". Technically, it is a bit different since "most" can include "all" but this cannot. But, honestly, this is a finer toothed-comb than we need to use here.

[braintreeprez]

Another way to think about why B is incorrect...

The argument can be boiled down this way:

Commercially Viable --> Personal Gain --> ~ (Society's Interest)

Even if you drop off 'Commercially Viable,' you're still left with the rest of the chain. In other words, even if commercially viable technology IS in society's interests, that still wouldn't change the fact that those who are making technological advances are primarily motivated by personal gain.

[shen8115]

Would (b) be correct if the answer is (b) takes for granted that commercially viable technology cannot serve the interests of society as a whole?

[seychelles1718]

Would (b) be correct if the answer is (b) takes for granted that commercially viable technology cannot serve the interests of society as a whole?

No. because what you said is just a contrapositive of B.

Would B correct if the conclusion of the argument says "technological innovation CANNOT/NEVER serves the interests of society" instead of saying in RARELY serves the interests of the society?

[obobob]

Caan someone explain why (C) cannot be the correct answer? I chose (C) originally, and I still see that (C) could be a not-so-bad answer. Is this wrong because of the wording "do not result in personal gain"? Is there too much logical gap in between "[something that] do not result in personal gain" and "[something that serves] societal benefit"?

[ohthatpatrick]

To beat any author, you have to be able the opposite of her conclusion.

To beat this author, we need a flaw that lets us argue that it's possible that "tech innovation FREQUENTLY serves the interests of society".

She thinks is RARELY serves society's interests because the people behind the tech innovation are in it for personal gain.

So an effective objection is saying, "Hey author, something might be done for person gain but FREQUENTLY serve the interests of society".

(C) is saying, "Hey author, something might be done for personal gain but not result in personal gain".

And, yes, you cannot equate "it didn't result in personal gain with it did result in societal gain".

That would be assuming that everything in the world either results in personal gain or societal gain.

But many things might just result in personal loss and societal loss (or personal/societal neutrality).

Hope this helps.