Q10 - Cotrell is, at best, able

[b91302310]

In the stilmuli, based on my understanding, the structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: The most compelling piecies of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior.

Premise 2: Since Cotrell, who is incapable of wrting an article that is better than average.

Premise 3: Cortell must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.

Conclusion:Cotrell is,at best, able to write magazie articles of average quality.

As mentioned in the correct answer choice, the flaw of reasoning is that it presupposes what it seeks to establish. Does it mean that the presupposition is Premise 2, which seeks to establish the conclusion with the same meaning?

I am quite confused about this question because I was wondering whether premise 1 and premise 2 shall also be considered. I finally chose A because I think there is possible a counterevidence for the author's claim about the plagiarism.(maybe the superior ones are not plagiarized).

So, could anyone share the thinking path toward this question? Thanks !

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You see the flaw but are being distracted from the core of the argument.

You have the evidence and conclusion properly identified, and the flaw in the argument is that the conclusion is merely a restatement of the 2nd premise. The 1st and 3rd premises here are simply not relevant in to the flaw in the argument, but create some tempting yet incorrect answer choices. Thus answer choice (C) is the best description of the flaw committed in the argument.

(A) is not bad but the counterevidence is not ignored. The argument doesn't just ignore the fact that Cotrell has produced articles of superior quality. The argument claims that these were plagiarized.
(B) is unsupported. The argument doesn't generalize from atypical examples, but rather describes why those atypical examples should be dismissed.
(D) is unsupported. There are no experts involved in this argument.
(E) is unsupported. These are not isolated lapses in performance, but rather routinely bad performance is contrasted with a few exceptions of superior quality which are dismissed as plagiarized.

Does that help you see this one a bit more clearly?

[b91302310]

Got it! Thanks!

[AbhiC801]

Got it! Thanks!

In the stilmuli, based on my understanding, the structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: The most compelling piecies of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior.

Premise 2: Since Cotrell, who is incapable of wrting an article that is better than average.

Premise 3: Cortell must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.

Conclusion:Cotrell is,at best, able to write magazie articles of average quality.

As mentioned in the correct answer choice, the flaw of reasoning is that it presupposes what it seeks to establish. Does it mean that the presupposition is Premise 2, which seeks to establish the conclusion with the same meaning?

I am quite confused about this question because I was wondering whether premise 1 and premise 2 shall also be considered. I finally chose A because I think there is possible a counterevidence for the author's claim about the plagiarism.(maybe the superior ones are not plagiarized).

So, could anyone share the thinking path toward this question? Thanks !

I can't see how conclusion here is 1) "Cotrell is,at best, able to write magazie articles of average quality". I think the conclusion should be 2) "must obviously have plagiarized superior ones".
I can see how (1) can support (2), but I can't see how (2) can support (1).
Please help!!!

[VendelaG465]

I'm confused as to how "Cotrell who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average" is the conclusion ? I saw the must in the last sentence & figured that was the conclusion and the premises seem to support it as well..?

[VendelaG465]

sorry correction *Cotrell is,at best, able to write magazie articles of average quality as conclusion

[ohthatpatrick]

The first sentence is the conclusion, because the second sentence begins, "The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are ..."

We later get an intermediate conclusion, which we can identify because the 2nd to last claim begins with "Since".

Any time we see "since ______ , ______ " it will always be true that the 1st idea was a premise and the 2nd was a conclusion (not necessarily the main conclusion).

[VendelaG465]

okay i understand the first part but even with the "therefore" test I'm finding it hard to differentiate between the intermediate conclusion and actual conclusion. I still see "cotrell is,at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality." & "...must obviously have plagiarized superior ones." as interchangeable.

cotrell is,at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality----> must obviously have plagiarized superior ones

must obviously have plagiarized superior ones---->cotrell is,at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, we wouldn't know which one to call the main conclusion unless they gave us clear keywords indicating which is which.

And they did.
The first sentence is the conclusion, because the second sentence begins, "The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are ..."

The rest of the paragraph fits underneath that umbrella.

It's kind of like if you read a paragraph that looked like this.
[Claim 1]. After all [claim 2] and thus [claim 3].

The "after all" indicates that Claim 1 was a conclusion, and everything contained in the conversation that begins with "after all" is therefore subordinate to Claim 1.

Claim 3 is clearly a conclusion, because it's prefaced by "thus".

But we know that CLAIM 3 must be an intermediate conclusion, because claims 2 and 3 are part of a conversation prefaced by "after all", and hence they are a conversation that stands in service of supporting claim 1.

This is all insanely technical sounding, and I don't think we need to worry about scoring this one correctly. It's more about making sure we're "listening" when the author acknowledges that Cotrell has written some great things but then immediately (and groundlessly) assumes that Cotrell must have stolen them since the author has a predetermined agenda that Cotrell is a sucky writer.

[CynthiaG382]

Would appreciate assistance with identifying the conclusion for this argument. I misidentified it during my PT and presumed the last sentence starting from "if the data" was the conclusion. I was between the first sentence and last for the conclusion and since neither felt like a subsidiary conclusion for the other, I assumed the study was the final point of the author. Thank you!

[JeremyK460]

Would appreciate assistance with identifying the conclusion for this argument. I misidentified it during my PT and presumed the last sentence starting from "if the data" was the conclusion. I was between the first sentence and last for the conclusion and since neither felt like a subsidiary conclusion for the other, I assumed the study was the final point of the author. Thank you!

Jeremy can only make mediocre tiktok videos.
Why can he only make mediocre tiktok vids?
Because the few vids he made that went viral weren't even his ideas.
How do you know they weren't his ideas?
Because he can only make mediocre tiktok videos.
Why can he only make mediocre tiktok videos?
Because the few vids he made...

i hope you see it now lol

[RobertoC90]

Jeremy's TikTok videos might seem mediocre, but there's a way to elevate content and gain more followers. While it's true that some viral content may not always be original, investing in promotion can make a significant difference. By using services like promo sound group, creators can boost their visibility and attract a larger audience. With more followers, Jeremy could get the recognition he deserves for his ideas and potentially turn those mediocre videos into viral hits.