Q11 - A controversial program rewards

[pgerretsen]

I do not understand why the answer is E. What is the evidence that is draw from an unrepresentative sample? Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

This one is much easier to understand if you eliminate the other four:

(A) Nope -- moral issues are put aside.
(B) Nope -- the author simply puts moral issues aside.
(C) Nope -- it's not a logical flaw to call something "controversial."
(D) Nope -- the author puts moral issues aside.
(E) Unrepresentative sample? Why not? The argument is based on a sample, and there are always potentially flaws in samples.

Wow, that was easy, eh? That's how I'd do this if I had no idea.

Now, (E) is correct because the sample of inmates who received plastic surgery is not a representative sample for concluding that surgery causes rehabilitation because the inmates who received plastic surgery did so as a reward for GOOD BEHAVIOR!

So, it's just as likely that good behavior --> rehabilitation, rather than surgery --> rehabilitation.

See it now?

[pgerretsen]

Yes, thanks.

[shaynfernandez]

The other answers are so miserable, it's pretty much the only reason to pick E. sample size as brought up pretty often for flaw questions. Yet it's often incorrect bc "we aren't worried about sample size" but I guess this is the only decent option.

[WaltGrace1983]

The other answers are so miserable, it's pretty much the only reason to pick E. sample size as brought up pretty often for flaw questions. Yet it's often incorrect bc "we aren't worried about sample size" but I guess this is the only decent option.

We totally ARE worried about the sample size here because what do we know about the people who get the surgery? We know that they are the ones who "behave particularly well in prison." AKA, the ones who receive the surgery are the good ones.

So, if they are in fact the good ones, how can we say that it is the surgery that has rehabilitative effects. Weren't they good BEFORE they got the surgery? After all, they needed to be good in order to get the surgery.

[logicfiend]

This question is such a good example of an easy question made difficult (or at least less obvious) because of the way the argument is written, particularly separating "prison inmates who behave particularly well in prison" with the conclusion all the way at the end. By the time you get to the bottom of this stimulus, you've already forgotten why these people are getting surgery in the first place—as a reward for good behavior in prison!

[gymnajoy]

Hi
So I totally understand why E is the correct answer, but can anyone explain why D is incorrect?
I know that above someone said it is incorrect because the author said 'moral issues aside' but does that really conclude everything? Wouldnt moral issues also have to be considered when assessing a policy? confused TT_TT help!!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, gymnajoy!

Before I dig directly into the meat of the question, I want to address this:

Wouldnt moral issues also have to be considered when assessing a policy? confused TT_TT help!!

In real life, yes, all kinds of things would need to be addressed! But this isn't real life! There's nothing in this argument that suggests that moral considerations are relevant to the argument.

Also, your job here is NOT to "assess a policy". You are evaluating the validity of the conclusion - and that conclusion is NOT "this policy is awesome and we should continue it"!! The conclusion is much more limited than that: the author claims that the surgery has a rehabilitative effect.

The author isn't claiming the surgery is a good thing, he's not concluding that there are no issues to consider, he's not suggesting that we implement this program in the future - he's ONLY concluding that the surgery has a particular effect on inmates. Whether this program was moral or immoral or blue-moral would not affect whether this rehabilitative effect was occurring.

Let's break down the argument cleanly:

PREMISE:
1) Free plastic surgery is offered to well-behaved inmates
2) inmates that receive surgery have a much lower rate of committing new crimes than the rest of the inmates
CONCLUSION: The surgery has a rehabilitative effect

Notice that I didn't include the "moral issues" anywhere in the breakdown of this argument? The author says two things about moral issues:

1) the program is obviously morally questionable, and
2) "putting these moral issues aside"

The first might sound like a premise at first. But when you realize that the conclusion is "surgery causes rehabilitation", it becomes clear that the questionable morality of the program isn't being used as a support for the conclusion. The questionable morality is a fact, but it is not a premise.

The second phrase is far more interesting - the author is explicitly telling us that he is setting the morality issues aside. In other words, the morality issues have nothing to do with this argument. If we can pick up on that in our original reading of the argument, the eliminations that bbirdwell walked through above become much easier!

Okay, so enough of what the argument isn't about, let's return to what the argument is all about: the claim that the surgery caused the rehabilitation.

This argument is assuming that there's no other possible explanation for this particular group of inmates having a lower-than-average rate for new crimes. That's bad enough, but there's a piece of information staring us in the face that highlights a potential alternative explanation: this group is handpicked for being well-behaved! This group might already be predisposed to have a lower new-crime rate - regardless of whether we do the surgery or not!

That leads us right into the arms of (E): the sample (inmates getting surgery) is unlikely to be representative of the general prison population - they are the well-behaved inmates!

Notice that ALL the wrong answers deal with that morality issue - the one the author explicitly set aside!

(A) The author didn't allow moral issues to be considered. He explicitly set them aside!
(B) The author doesn't dismiss them as irrelevant, he simply sets them aside for this argument. Plus, for the conclusion that the author's making, moral considerations would not be relevant - so even if the author did this, it would not be a flaw.
(C) The author uses this label, but so what?
(D) The author never asserts that this isn't a moral issue. In fact, he clearly states that the morality is obviously questionable. He sets the moral issues "aside" - that's completely different from asserting that the issues don't exist.

Sometimes things that would be relevant to a real life analysis, or to a broad conclusion like "this program is a good idea", are NOT relevant to a narrower argument like "X program causes Y result." Don't blow the conclusion up to a broader scope!

Does this help clear up some things?

[JohnK403]

Thanks for posting, gymnajoy!

Before I dig directly into the meat of the question, I want to address this:

Wouldnt moral issues also have to be considered when assessing a policy? confused TT_TT help!!

In real life, yes, all kinds of things would need to be addressed! But this isn't real life! There's nothing in this argument that suggests that moral considerations are relevant to the argument.

Also, your job here is NOT to "assess a policy". You are evaluating the validity of the conclusion - and that conclusion is NOT "this policy is awesome and we should continue it"!! The conclusion is much more limited than that: the author claims that the surgery has a rehabilitative effect.

The author isn't claiming the surgery is a good thing, he's not concluding that there are no issues to consider, he's not suggesting that we implement this program in the future - he's ONLY concluding that the surgery has a particular effect on inmates. Whether this program was moral or immoral or blue-moral would not affect whether this rehabilitative effect was occurring.

Let's break down the argument cleanly:

PREMISE:
1) Free plastic surgery is offered to well-behaved inmates
2) inmates that receive surgery have a much lower rate of committing new crimes than the rest of the inmates
CONCLUSION: The surgery has a rehabilitative effect

Notice that I didn't include the "moral issues" anywhere in the breakdown of this argument? The author says two things about moral issues:

1) the program is obviously morally questionable, and
2) "putting these moral issues aside"

The first might sound like a premise at first. But when you realize that the conclusion is "surgery causes rehabilitation", it becomes clear that the questionable morality of the program isn't being used as a support for the conclusion. The questionable morality is a fact, but it is not a premise.

The second phrase is far more interesting - the author is explicitly telling us that he is setting the morality issues aside. In other words, the morality issues have nothing to do with this argument. If we can pick up on that in our original reading of the argument, the eliminations that bbirdwell walked through above become much easier!

Okay, so enough of what the argument isn't about, let's return to what the argument is all about: the claim that the surgery caused the rehabilitation.

This argument is assuming that there's no other possible explanation for this particular group of inmates having a lower-than-average rate for new crimes. That's bad enough, but there's a piece of information staring us in the face that highlights a potential alternative explanation: this group is handpicked for being well-behaved! This group might already be predisposed to have a lower new-crime rate - regardless of whether we do the surgery or not!

That leads us right into the arms of (E): the sample (inmates getting surgery) is unlikely to be representative of the general prison population - they are the well-behaved inmates!

Notice that ALL the wrong answers deal with that morality issue - the one the author explicitly set aside!

(A) The author didn't allow moral issues to be considered. He explicitly set them aside!
(B) The author doesn't dismiss them as irrelevant, he simply sets them aside for this argument. Plus, for the conclusion that the author's making, moral considerations would not be relevant - so even if the author did this, it would not be a flaw.
(C) The author uses this label, but so what?
(D) The author never asserts that this isn't a moral issue. In fact, he clearly states that the morality is obviously questionable. He sets the moral issues "aside" - that's completely different from asserting that the issues don't exist.

Sometimes things that would be relevant to a real life analysis, or to a broad conclusion like "this program is a good idea", are NOT relevant to a narrower argument like "X program causes Y result." Don't blow the conclusion up to a broader scope!

Does this help clear up some things?

I got the correct answer and understand why it is correct. However, beside that, I am totally confused with the phrase "among recipients of the surgery, the proportion who are convicted of new crimes committed after release is only half that for the prison population as a whole."

I am confused with the term "half" and "prison population as a whole." Is half means the number of inmates who received a surgery convicted a new crimes is half of the prison population or half of the total of inmates who convicted new crimes?