Lets sue fast-food companies - Verbal Review CR # 44

[rajkapoor]

This made-up argument simulates with OG problem in structure.


People don't sue most popular fast-food chain McMickey Boo for menu items that contain transfat food ,which raises high level of LDL,the bad cholsterol.But these customers just take medicine in case their LDL rises high.Dr Zee argues that taking medication for high cholestrol is partly responsible for continous sale of such bad,trans-fat food by M.Boo & company. If people were more selective and cautious in their eating choices at McMickey and not rely on medication alone for lower LDL, the fast-food chain would be forced to modify the menu with more heathy food to compete wtih the rapidly growing Organic Burger chain.


What is the conclusion of the above statement?

i) Taking medication for high cholesterol level caused by eating fast-food is responsible for sale of bad trans-fat ridden food by McMickey Boo.
ii) McMickey Boo will be forced to modify the menu with more healthy food to compete with Organic Burger chain.


I struggled with figuring out the right conclusion. I chose the answer choice (ii) but I believe that is not the correct choice.

Looking forward to hear from the instructors and alike ...

[RonPurewal]

This made-up argument simulates with OG problem in structure.


People don't sue most popular fast-food chain McMickey Boo for menu items that contain transfat food ,which raises high level of LDL,the bad cholsterol.But these customers just take medicine in case their LDL rises high.Dr Zee argues that taking medication for high cholestrol is partly responsible for continous sale of such bad,trans-fat food by M.Boo & company. If people were more selective and cautious in their eating choices at McMickey and not rely on medication alone for lower LDL, the fast-food chain would be forced to modify the menu with more heathy food to compete wtih the rapidly growing Organic Burger chain.


What is the conclusion of the above statement?

i) Taking medication for high cholesterol level caused by eating fast-food is responsible for sale of bad trans-fat ridden food by McMickey Boo.
ii) McMickey Boo will be forced to modify the menu with more healthy food to compete with Organic Burger chain.


I struggled with figuring out the right conclusion. I chose the answer choice (ii) but I believe that is not the correct choice.

Looking forward to hear from the instructors and alike ...

when you're trying to FIND THE CONCLUSION of an argument, you use the THEREFORE TEST.

this is a pretty simple test.
if you can't tell which of "X" and "Y" (two related statements) is the conclusion, then:
* try "X; therefore, Y" --> if this makes sense, then Y is the conclusion.
* try "Y; therefore, X" --> if this makes sense, then X is the conclusion.

in this passage:
"X; therefore, Y" is
taking medication for high cholestrol is partly responsible for continous sale of such bad,trans-fat food by M.Boo & company.
THEREFORE,
If people were more selective and cautious in their eating choices at McMickey and not rely on medication alone for lower LDL, the fast-food chain would be forced to modify the menu with more heathy food to compete wtih the rapidly growing Organic Burger chain
this makes no logical sense.

"Y; therefore, X" is
If people were more selective and cautious in their eating choices at McMickey and not rely on medication alone for lower LDL, the fast-food chain would be forced to modify the menu with more heathy food to compete wtih the rapidly growing Organic Burger chain
THEREFORE,
taking medication for high cholestrol is partly responsible for continous sale of such bad,trans-fat food by M.Boo & company.

this totally makes sense.
therefore, "taking medication..." is the conclusion.

--

[rajkapoor]

Thanks for the response,Ron.

I did know about the therefore rule but I struggle applying it at times,
especially when argument additionally contains an hypothetical condition
in the form of "If X , Y can/will happen" or "Although X,Y".
I fall in the trap of focussing on this conditional part of the argument structure and
breaking it into premises and conclusion.

e.g.
Forex Traders argue that Euro rises againt Dollar everytime Bernake goes out to lunch with Geithner to an Italian restaraunt instead of going to Subway.
If Bernake goes to lunch with Geithner tomorrow to Olive Garden,an italian restaraunt,we can expect euro rise against dollar.

sub-conclusion: Euro rises againt Dollar everytime Bernake goes out to lunch with Geithner........
premise: Bernake goes to lunch with Geithner tomorrow to Olive garden
conclusion: We can expect euro rise against dollar.

Don't sub-conclusion and premise lead to conclusion in above analysis?
The issue i falter on is the role of segments in the hypothetical condition.

The way you have suggested ,if I have understood correctly, is

If Bernake goes to lunch .... , we can expect Euro rise against dollar.
Therefore
Euro rises against dollar everytime Bernake goes out to lunch with Geithner to an italian restauraunt.....

Considering this , am I to believe that the the conditional statement as whole is one premise and that my mistake is to break this hypothetical statement into false premises leading to a false conclusion?

[rajkapoor]

also , on the same lines , if I were to modify the hypothetical condition to make the argument as following

Forex Traders argue that Euro rises againt Dollar everytime Bernake goes out to lunch with Geithner to an Italian restaraunt instead of going to Subway.
If Bernake goes to lunch with Geithner tomorrow, as planned ,to Olive Garden,an italian restaraunt,we can expect euro to rise against dollar and so we should send free Subway coupons to Bernake today.

does this addtional comment in the argument change the conclusion of the argument.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for the response,Ron.

I did know about the therefore rule but I struggle applying it at times,
especially when argument additionally contains an hypothetical condition
in the form of "If X , Y can/will happen" or "Although X,Y".
I fall in the trap of focussing on this conditional part of the argument structure and
breaking it into premises and conclusion.

e.g.
Forex Traders argue that Euro rises againt Dollar everytime Bernake goes out to lunch with Geithner to an Italian restaraunt instead of going to Subway.
If Bernake goes to lunch with Geithner tomorrow to Olive Garden,an italian restaraunt,we can expect euro rise against dollar.

sub-conclusion: Euro rises againt Dollar everytime Bernake goes out to lunch with Geithner........
premise: Bernake goes to lunch with Geithner tomorrow to Olive garden
conclusion: We can expect euro rise against dollar.

Don't sub-conclusion and premise lead to conclusion in above analysis?
The issue i falter on is the role of segments in the hypothetical condition.

The way you have suggested ,if I have understood correctly, is

If Bernake goes to lunch .... , we can expect Euro rise against dollar.
Therefore
Euro rises against dollar everytime Bernake goes out to lunch with Geithner to an italian restauraunt.....

Considering this , am I to believe that the the conditional statement as whole is one premise and that my mistake is to break this hypothetical statement into false premises leading to a false conclusion?

well, given the examples that you've posted here, i think the real problem is that you're using the wrong kind of reasoning for a "draw the conclusion" problem.

when you do "draw the conclusion", you must pick statements that can be PROVED from the existing statements. (this is known as "deductive reasoning")

in particular, you are not ever allowed to extrapolate or generalize when you draw your own conclusion.
even if you have observed some phenomenon occurring on a consistent basis, you have no grounds on which to postulate that this phenomenon will CONTINUE to occur.
in the example above, even if the reported activity with the euro and the dollar has occurred every time these two have gone to lunch, we have no reason to believe that this will continue to happen.

--

also, i think you're making the analysis a little bit harder for yourself by using the phrase "sub-conclusion" in that argument.

i'm not saying that there is no place for the term "sub-conclusion", since, indeed, there are arguments in which subsidiary conclusions are reached, and then those conclusions are used for further purposes (they are expounded on, or, much more commonly, debunked by a further argument).
but, you've taken a premise that is just handed to us -- the relationship between bernanke's lunches and the euro/dollar interaction -- and called it a "sub-conclusion". since this is just presented to us as if it were a fact, why don't you just call it a premise?

i'm not just trying to nitpick here; the distinction is important. if something is truly a "sub-conclusion" -- i.e., the product of some sort of reasoning based on prior premises -- then you should be able to criticize or weaken the reasoning leading up to that "sub-conclusion". on the other hand, if the statement is just given to us as a premise, ipse dixit, right at the beginning of the passage, then you can't criticize it via logical argument.