EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT QUESTIONS

[FA]

Hello,

I have gone through the CR material about "Evaluate The Argument Questions" from MGMAT CR Strategy Guide 5th Ed. and Ron's March 3, 2011 Study Hall, I am confused about a basic but important point related to the method we use and the frame of mind we put ourselves in, while tackling the "Evaluate The Arguments Questions" and I am always getting them wrong:

Background:
MGMAT CR Strategy Guide suggests that these questions should remain within the scope (Page 109): "Out of scope: don't make additional assumptions!". Whereas Ron's Study Hall of March 3, 2011 discusses these questions as a variant of Strengthen/Weaken questions that can go either way.
To avoid confusion, I must mention that my understanding of the term or jargon "Out Of Scope" is based on the way Ron has prudently explained the difference between Assumptions Questions and St/Wk Questions in study hall of March 4,2010. In that study hall Ron has nicely explained that the Assumption questions should remain within the argument's immediate scope, whereas the St/Wk questions must venture somewhat outside the argument's immediate scope.

Question
Does correct answer choice ventures somewhat outside the scope of the argument or does it remain within the scope? (OR TO PUT IT IN ANOTHER WAY), do we treat these questions as we would treat the Assumption questions or do we treat them as St/Wk questions?

[RonPurewal]

ah, ok, i see what's going on here.

the book is using "out of scope" to mean "irrelevant to the argument".
the problem with this definition, though, is that it's pretty much useless: if you already know what's relevant and what's not, then you'll already be able to solve the problem!

thus, i'm using that phrase to mean "outside the literal content of the passage".
if this usage confuses you, then just use a different phrase--e.g., "outside the box", "outside the boundaries", "not what's already there", "not actually provided".

[RonPurewal]

since this discussion is getting annoyingly abstract, here's a simple problem to serve as an illustration.

My friend, whose weight has stayed the same for years, has started eating more food than ever before. Therefore, he will gain weight. What would help evaluate this argument?

here are some possible answers:
Is he working out more now?
Is he eating different foods (that are less conducive to weight gain)?
Has he started or stopped any drugs that affect metabolic rate?
Does he have a wasting disease?
Is he throwing up the food?
Etc.

using the book's definition, ALL of these notions (exercise, type of food, thermogenic/anti-thermogenic drugs, wasting diseases, emesis) are "in scope", because they're relevant.
i think you can see the problem: if you already know these are relevant, you can already solve the problem.

my definition simply points out that these topics aren't mentioned explicitly in the passage--an observation that's useful, since anything that is already on the table cannot affect the argument.
for instance, total quantity of food has already been mentioned, so it can't have any further effect on the argument.

as you'll certainly know if you've read much of what i write here, i don't love terminology. so, if we must introduce terms, my philosophy is that they should at least help you solve the problems!

[FA]

Ron,

The details have been exceedingly helpful. Thank you for a very apt response. I really appreciate it. Moving forward and closing the discussion about EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT questions:

How should one attempt this specific question type:

1 - With frame of mind of solving Find The Assumption Questions?

(OR)

2 - With frame of mind of solving Strengthen/Weaken Questions?

Kind Regards,
Farukh

[RonPurewal]

My friend, whose weight has been the same for years, has started eating more food than ever before. Therefore, he will gain weight.

HELP EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT:
is he working out more now?
is he eating different food (that's less conducive to weight gain)?
does he have a wasting disease, or a parasite such as a tapeworm?
has he begun to vomit after meals?
has he recently started any drugs that speed metabolism, and/or stopped any drugs that slow it?
etc.

WEAKEN:
he's working out more now.
he's now eating a larger selection of foods that are less conducive to weight gain.
he has developed a wasting disease.
he has recently been infected with a tapeworm or other metabolic parasite.
he's started to throw up after meals.
he just started a thyroid drug that speeds metabolism.
he just stopped taking a type of antidepressant whose side effects include metabolic slowdown.
etc.

[RonPurewal]

^^ pretty much the same, as you can see.

the only difference, really, is that "strengthen" / "weaken" goes one step further, by actually taking sides on the issues raised in the choices. "help evaluate", by contrast, merely raises the issues, in a way that's strictly noncommittal.

this distinction matters, mostly because "oops, that goes the wrong way" is an extremely common type of error on strengthen/weaken questions, but doesn't exist at all on "help evaluate" questions (since the latter don't take sides in the first place).

[RonPurewal]

i have seen instances in which people approach strengthen/weaken/evaluate questions by "identifying assumptions" and then proceeding to relevant issues.

this strategy might work for some people, sure, but not for me. in my eyes, the primary effect of this approach is to unnecessarily compound the difficulty of the task, in 2 ways:

1/
it takes a task that we do every single day of our lives (= arguing that someone is likely to be right or wrong [strengthen/weaken] and/or raising issues that a speaker may have forgotten to address [help evaluate])... and converts it into something that we rarely do consciously (finding assumptions). remember, the whole point of 'assumptions' is that we normally DON'T consciously enumerate them!

2/
it replaces a task that naturally starts from given concrete answer choices (= strengthen/weaken/evaluate) with one that requires the student to divine things that aren't written on the page (= assumptions).

too abstract for me. i don't think well in non-concrete terms.

again, i readily admit that n = 1 here; i speak only for myself. but, empirically, this is something with which my students have had largely the same issues.

[RonPurewal]

in fact, when actual assumption questions pop up, i generally recommend that students use the "negation" method (= make the choices false, and see which one destroys the argument).

perhaps ironically, this method has the effect of transforming 'assumption' questions (whose targets are things that don't actually appear in the passages) into pumped-up 'weaken' questions (starting from concrete answer choices!)

the only difference is that, once the choices have been negated, the resulting task is much stronger than a typical 'weaken' question. indeed, the correct answer should completely destroy the integrity of the original argument!
still, though, the difference is one of degree; the reasoning process for 'destroy' isn't much different from that for 'weaken'.

[FA]

Ron,

Thank you. Those were excellent answers. I now have a clear understanding of the difference between St/Wk/Eval questions vs. Assumption questions.

Regards
Farukh

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.