samuelfbaron
Thanks Received: 6
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 71
Joined: September 14th, 2012
 
 
 

Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by samuelfbaron Sun May 26, 2013 2:56 pm

I was really stuck between (A) and (D), however, I got tripped up on all the negatives in answer choice (A).

Premise --> Riley has a feud with the president.

Subconclusion: We cannot conclude that Riley's comment about the speech being inflammatory is true, therefore it's inappropriate.

Conclusion --> We cannot conclude that her speech was inappropriate without independently verifying that it was inflammatory.

I got confused at this point. Why is (D) wrong?
User avatar
 
noah
Thanks Received: 1192
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: February 11th, 2009
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by noah Tue May 28, 2013 11:39 am

This is a tough question! I see the argument structure a bit differently (though I think it might be that you simply mis-typed your conception of the intermediate conclusion).

The conclusion is clearly the last sentence. But, we have to be aware that it's the entire last sentence: If we don't have any independent reasons to say the prez's speech was inflammatory, we have to conclude that it was not inappropriate. (Or, if your brain likes this better: If the speech is found to be inappropriate, we must have some independent evidence saying so.)

Why?

Because the supposed evidence that the speech was inflammatory and thus inappropriate is not sufficient by itself to draw that conclusion.

Why?

The professor who says it has a long-standing problem with the prez.

Well, what do we think of this? Seems like a lot of problems! But, it's a strong conclusion: the speech was definitely not inappropriate. Our debate-thinking should be oriented towards how the speech still might have been inappropriate.

First off, is the fact that the prof and the prez have a long-standing feud enough to say that the prof's evidence is not sufficient? No! You can be in a feud with someone but still accurately criticize that person.

Also, even if we accept the fact that the prof's proof is tainted and insufficient, couldn't it be that the prez's speech was inappropriate? It might be that we have no other independent reasons--maybe only the prof was in the room!--and so it's not provable, but it still happened!

Finally--and this is what (A) hinges on--even if we accept that there's no proof of the prez having made an inflammatory and thus inappropriate speech, it might be that the speech was inappropriate for some other reason. Perhaps the prez wore a Nixon mask or did something else rendering the speech inappropriate. Thus, we can say that the argument assumes that the speech being inappropriate hinges on it being inflammatory.

In retrospect we could say that the answer hinges on evaluating this argument:

The speech was not inflammatory --> The speech was not inappropriate.

Obviously, the argument complicates that quite a bit though!

As for the wrong answers:

(B) is tempting! Does inflammatory really mean inappropriate? Isn't inflammation sometimes exactly what is called for? Perhaps. However, this would be the answer if the argument had been the speech was inflammatory, therefore it was inappropriate. Instead, we're facing an argument in which we have not established that the argument was inflammatory.

In more formal terms, (A) gives us: hey argument, you're assuming inappropriate --> inflammatory while (B) gives us: hey argument, you're assuming inflammatory --> inappropriate.

(C) might be tempting if you were simply looking for an answer that focused on the questionable role of "the long-standing feud" in this argument. However, (C) introduces "privileged standing" which is a new and unsupported idea, making this argument out of scope.

(D) is tempting for similar reasons as (C). However, do we know that Riley will benefit if the prez's speech is deemed inappropriate? Maybe Riley will become an anathema on campus for having humiliated a beloved president.

(E) is questioning the premise that the prez and the prof have a well-founded long-standing feud. We just have to accept that the feud exists--who cares if it's well-founded?

I'll be interested in any follow-up questions or comments, as I really had to think about this one!
 
samuelfbaron
Thanks Received: 6
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 71
Joined: September 14th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by samuelfbaron Tue May 28, 2013 11:58 am

Thanks Noah! It's all clear now!

This question isn't actually that difficult to understand, I believe it was the answer choices that I had difficulty comprehending.
 
Nina
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 103
Joined: October 15th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by Nina Wed May 29, 2013 3:26 pm

hey Noah,

thanks for your clear analysis. i still have some problem elimating E. i found this question similar to Q12 in section 2 of the same PT (68). for that question, the correct answer is D addresses the possibility that someone who may be biased due to personal issues may nonetheless provide legitimate ground for his argument. E addresses the same gap here, since Riley may have other well founded reasons for his claims, but why is E incorrect?

thanks a lot!
User avatar
 
noah
Thanks Received: 1192
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: February 11th, 2009
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by noah Wed May 29, 2013 4:10 pm

Nina Wrote:hey Noah,

thanks for your clear analysis. i still have some problem elimating E. i found this question similar to Q12 in section 2 of the same PT (68). for that question, the correct answer is D addresses the possibility that someone who may be biased due to personal issues may nonetheless provide legitimate ground for his argument. E addresses the same gap here, since Riley may have other well founded reasons for his claims, but why is E incorrect?

thanks a lot!

I edited my explanation to be clearer.

This answer isn't really the same as (D) for #12. That one is pointing out that a bad relationship doesn't mean that someone's point of view is not trustworthy (about the other person). This one is about whether the bad relationship is bad for a good reason. As I say above, who cares if the bad relationship is bad for a reason that we can understand/accept -- relationships are often irrational!
 
zainrizvi
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 171
Joined: July 19th, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by zainrizvi Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:41 pm

I think (D) would also be wrong because we aren't necessarily concluding Riley's claim is false. We are saying IF THERE ARE NO OTHER REASONS, then her claim is false.

It has a slightly different meaning.
 
Dkrajewski30
Thanks Received: 12
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 20
Joined: May 09th, 2013
 
This post thanked 3 times.
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by Dkrajewski30 Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:21 pm

I was instantly drawn to E for this one, which is what I selected. It seems I was conflating 'animosity' in the answer choice with 'criticism', but of course it doesn't matter to the argument whether the animosity is well-founded. The fact is that the animosity exists and the author uses the animosity to frame one of his premises, but the conclusion does not ride on whether the animosity was well-founded - it rides on whether the prof's criticism was well-founded.

So here's what I'm thinking with E. If 'criticism' were to replace 'animosity', then E would be a direct blow to the argument's conclusion. If prof's criticism is well-founded, but then we don't need independent reasons regarding whether the president's speech was inflammatory in order to conclude that it was inappropriate. If the criticism that the speech was inappropriate was reasonable and justified, then why is that we must need to argue for its inflammatory nature in order to deem it inappropriate? We don't have to, as prof's criticism is a good one.

But of course, this isn't the case, and now looking back at the argument, A is the clear-cut answer. If you examine this question like a nec. assumption question, then you see that the argument needs to assume that a speech must be inflammatory in order to be appropriate. If you negate the assumption to make it state that a speech can be inappropriate without necessarily being inflammatory, then who is to say that we must be able to prove that it's inflammatory? The speech could conceivably be inappropriate without being inflammatory if we negate the assumption. And this consideration destroys the argument.

As for D, another potentially tempting choice, I eliminated it on the grounds that one need not necessarily be self-interested in order to make a criticism. Maybe prof just likes making criticisms for their own sake. But aside from that, it just doesn't pertain to the argument core. The author concludes that the speech needs to be deemed inflammatory in order to even have a chance of being deemed inappropriate. What does prof's potential gain in making the criticism have to do with an analysis of the term 'inappropriate'? It doesn't. Whether he has something to gain or not, D does not lead us to question the conclusion at all.
 
wj097
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 123
Joined: September 10th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by wj097 Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:18 pm

I totally agree why (A) is the correct answer.

I just want to make sure if the part saying "However, Riley has a long-standing feud with the president, and so we should not conclude that her speech was inflammatory solely on the basis of Riley's testimony." could be sorted as an Ad Hominem flawed argument.

In this regard,
what if answer choice (E) was reworded as:

fails to adequately address the possibility that even if Riley had long standing feud with the president, there is a good reason to regard the president's speech as inflammatory if we look closely into what Riley was saying.


Even though this might not resolve the major flaw set up on the conclusion, I wonder if this reworded version of (E) could still be a correct one in case of the absence of (A).
 
christine.defenbaugh
Thanks Received: 585
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 536
Joined: May 17th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by christine.defenbaugh Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:46 am

I like the way you're thinking with a lot of this wj097!

I like a lot of what you did in the reworded version of (E), but I want to clear up something on ad hominem attacks first.

An ad hominem attack must be an irrelevant use of someone's character to attempt to undermine their argument. For instance, if the author was questioning the truth of Riley's claim merely because he steals cable, that would be a clear ad hominem.

A suggestion that someone is biased (or a liar), however, goes directly to the potential truth of the argument itself. It's not an irrelevant character attack - it's a direct attack on the likelihood that the argument is true that happens to also be an attack on the character of the arguer.

Since Riley has this feud, he's biased against the university president, and that would undercut our ability to trust what he says. If the argument had stopped at the intermediary conclusion that without independent verification, we shouldn't necessarily conclude that the speech was inflammatory, then it would be perfectly reasonable.

Now, that being said, I like your reworking of (E). The conclusion here does two terrible things: 1) it assumes inflammatory is the only way to be inappropriate (what (A) targets) AND 2) it suddenly switches from 'without independent verification we shouldn't trust Riley's claim' to 'without independent verification, Riley's WRONG'.

It's valid to be distrustful of Riley, but it's silly to assume that Riley must be wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Your rewording of (E) is getting close to the mark on targeting that. However, one could argue that "if we look closely" might qualify as "independent reasons".

Here's my rewording of your rewording :ugeek: "fails to adequately address the possibility that Riley might be correct about the speech, even if no independent reasons to corroborate him surface."

What do you think?
 
TillyS471
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 8
Joined: September 05th, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q21 - Professor Riley characterized

by TillyS471 Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:02 am

tough question.
But really, if you take it apart. you'd see the RILEY ad hom attack isn't really an ad hom attack. and It is just there to throw you off, so you would immediately jump at it and take the bait. which is answer choice D.

Let's see how the supposedly ad hom is worded : Riley has had a long-standing feud with the president, so far so good, they hate each other, preparing for ad hom,
And so, we should NOT conclude that her speech is inflammatory SOLELY on the basis of Riley's testimony.
WHAT IS IT SAYING? means we can not conclude ANYTHING... we can not say if it si inflammatory or if it is not.
We are just saying : We can not say anything about it based on RILEY's testimony. ONE PERSON'S TESTIMONY. First of all, making a judgement based on a ONE PERSON's testimony is already effy, let alone someone who could be suspect of just being hateful. There is essentially nothing wrong with this statement.
What is Ad Hom
Here it is :
Riley hates the president, so whatever riley says about the president is WRONG .....
meaning, IT IS NOT INFLAMMATORY because RILEY hates the president, therefore must be wrong.

I hope the difference is apparent now.
The real flaw is : inappropriate< -> inflammatory
which is repeated in the last sentence: unless... blah blah blah.. which is saying inappropriate-> actual proof it is inflammatory
plenty of speeches can be inflammatory but not inappropriate, and inappropriate but not inflammatory. these two do not equate.

A: takes for granted inappropriate->inflammatory
B: fails to address the possibility .. of what ? inflammatory speeches may be appropriate for some. ASSUMING this speech is already inflammatory... which is up to debate in the arg. , does not pass descriptive test.
C: where is the privileged standing mentioned as a premise.
D: ad hom, as said, its not true, does not apply.
E: whether riley is justified in his hate towards the president, is pretty irrelevant.