Q10 - When students receive negative criticism

[tiourina]

Hello there,
I am puzzled about this question. What am I missing in my formal logic diagram?

Evidence

CC -->PR
HC -->PR

A-->PR

ASS: ????
---------------
Conclusion

HC-->L

Formal Notation Key:
CC _ negative criticism from computer
HC _negative criticism from human
PR _ positive response to criticism
A _ acceptance of criticism

If I add the correct answer choice (A)
HC-->PR-->A-->L
BUT it is a mistaken reversal PR-->A

Can someone please help me with it? This question draws me crazy? Thanks a lot!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

In general, unless you have a background in formal logic, we do not recommend that you approach problems such as this on in the manner you've described.

You've done a really good job of breaking down the argument into symbols and notation, but the notations deprive you of the nuances of the argument.

For example, the argument says that students are less likely to respond positively to one sort of criticism (computer) than they are to another (human).

In your notation, this was translated into:

CC -- > PR
HC -- > PR

You may have meant to put a (- ) in front of the first PR, but regardless, notice that the notation loses some of the original meaning -- it turns into absolutes what was originally a comparison.

Later, you notate A -- > PR
-- notice this is, in the original argument, an absolute relationship ("requires"). So, you've used the same notation

CC -- > PR
HC -- > PR
A -- > PR

for three different situations, and this will likely trip you up later.

Some people are very good at using formal notation, and understanding the benefits and limitations of it, but because it's challenging to implement, and, more importantly, because it can distract you from more significant priorities, we recommend that you think of it as a secondary tool.

Here's another way to look at the question:

The author's conclusion is that students are more likely to learn from criticism by humans than from computers.

What's the evidence used? Students are more likely to accept criticism from a human. (BTW -- we get this by adding together "acceptance requires positive response" + "students more likely to respond positively to human.)

We can think of the core as follows:

Students more likely to accept criticism from a human.

THEREFORE

Students more likely to learn from criticism from a human.

I think you had this, but it was part of, it seemed, 25 things you were thinking about. This core, and the gap in it, should be the main thing you are thinking about.

What is the gap in the core? The author is assuming a relationship between accepting criticism and learning from criticism. We need an answer that shows being more likely to accept makes one more likely to learn.

(A) does that.

Furthermore, not one other answer addresses the argument core or the gap in any way, correctly or incorrectly.

So to conclude, if you are finding the diagramming helpful, please keep with it, but know when to use it and when not to -- and make sure it doesn't distract you from your primary responsibility, which is to recognize the gap in the core.

[tiourina]

Thank you for your help. Your assistance has been very valuable and important to me.

[funner567]

Just out of curiosity, why doesnt "D" work? Is it because it states "less favorable" rather than "less accepted?

[LSAT-Chang]

Just out of curiosity, why doesnt "D" work? Is it because it states "less favorable" rather than "less accepted?

I had the same question.. Why doesn't (D) work?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

(D) is certainly an attractive answer --

Keep in mind that we are looking for an assumption on which the argument depends -- what that means is that we're looking for something that needs to be true in order for the premise to be used for the conclusion.

In real life terms (and I'm playing a bit with the specifics here) what (D) is essentially saying is that if, for example, Sally writes an essay, a computer is likely to give that essay a lower grade than a person would.

Do we need to know this in order to prove the author's point? No. The argument could still be fine even if (D) weren't true. Along with everything else we're told in the argument, it could certainly help explain why students are more likely to learn from human criticism, but it isn't something that is required in order for the argument to hold.

Hope that helps. Please follow up if you need further assistance!

[djy_neworiental]

Hi, for this question I chose A but not quite sure why C is wrong.
I mean, if a student doesn't know whether the critics are computers/ human, wouldn't he/she respond the same so that he/she will learn the same?
Thanks.

[vcoats2]

Also wondering why C isn't correct... the variable that affects how student react positively or negatively seems to be whether it's a human or a computer, so doesn't the argument assume that students know the difference between a human and a computer?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Also wondering why C isn't correct... the variable that affects how student react positively or negatively seems to be whether it's a human or a computer, so doesn't the argument assume that students know the difference between a human and a computer?

Not exactly. The evidence tells us that students are more likely to respond positively when the criticism comes from humans than when it comes from computers. Why? We don't know, nor do we really care. It doesn't even need to be the case that the students are aware of this tendency or why it happens. It just does. It could be the way the criticism is phrased, or maybe because humans use language that is kinder. Who knows? And it doesn't matter. We always simply accept the evidence to be true in evaluating an argument.

So based on the evidence that students respond more positively to criticism from humans than from computers, does it follow that that students are more likely to learn from criticism from humans than from criticism from computers. Not unless we assume that responding positively to criticism is a contributing factor of the learning process.

Essentially answer choice (C) makes us think that the students' response depends on them being aware of the source of the criticism, but why do the students need to be aware of the source in order for the source to have a certain impact.

Does that answer your question?

[guolan27]

I chose answer choice (D) but after a bit of review came up with this explanation. Hopefully this can be of use in helping understand why the other answer choices are incorrect.

Premise = Students are more likely to accept human criticism than computer criticism.

THEREFORE

Argument = Students are more likely to learn from human criticism than from computer criticism.

The only answer choice that fills in the gap between acceptance and learning is choice (A).

Incorrect Answer Choices
Choice (B): Gives a possible reason why students respond less positively (less willing to accept) to computer criticism. We are looking for an assumption not an explanation.

Choice (C): Whether the students know or not, this does not help explain why students are more likely to learn from human criticism than computer criticism.

Choice (D): Gives another possible reason why students respond less positively (less willing to accept) to computer criticism. Again we are looking for an assumption not an explanation.

Choice (E): This weakens the conclusion. If this is the case then students should be equally willing to accept and learn from the criticism of both humans and computers. Assumptions should always strengthen the argument not weaken it.

[guolan27]

Quick question. Choice (A) is both a necessary and sufficient assumption?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (A) is a Sufficient Assumption, or at least close enough to it in my book. We're always on the lookout for answer choices on Necessary Assumptions that aren't correct because they're more than what we're looking for (ie; sufficient assumptions).

However, on Necessary Assumption questions that work through linking together a chain of conditional reasoning, as is the case here, we often find that the correct answer is both sufficient and necessary.

On assumption questions we're looking to bridge a gap. Some bridges are sufficient, but not necessary. Some bridges are necessary, but not sufficient. And some are both! So when you're linking together a chain of conditional reasoning, look for that final option to represent the correct answer - though if you have to debate between two answers that link together that chain, always select the weakest of the available options on Necessary Assumption questions.

[Carlystern]

Did I do this right?

Since the conclusion mentions what students are MORE LIKELY to learn from, I focused on how they respond positively...so, here is what I notated:

HC--->RP
RP--->AC
(AC--->SL) <----assumption
---------------
HC--->SL

HC = human criticism
RP = respond positively
AC = accept criticism
SL = students learn

I interpreted that if it's a human computer, students are more likely to learn (and ignored the less likely part since that's pretty obvious). which brought me to the correct answer (A):

Students are more likely to learn from criticism that they accept than from criticism they do not accept.

But I suck ROYALLY at assigning stuff to it's proper N/S side. I do this with quite a bit of the notations for CL, but I seem to be getting the right answers. Am I over thinking it and should I just be more confident?

Carly

[Carlystern]

Did I do this right?

Since the conclusion mentions what students are MORE LIKELY to learn from, I focused on how they respond positively...so, here is what I notated:

HC--->RP
RP--->AC
(AC--->SL) <----assumption
---------------
HC--->SL

HC = human criticism
RP = respond positively
AC = accept criticism
SL = students learn

I interpreted that if it's a human computer, students are more likely to learn (and ignored the less likely part since that's pretty obvious). which brought me to the correct answer (A):

Students are more likely to learn from criticism that they accept than from criticism they do not accept.

But I suck ROYALLY at assigning stuff to it's proper N/S side. I do this with quite a bit of the notations for CL, but I seem to be getting the right answers. Am I over thinking it and should I just be more confident?

Carly

UGH, even my explanations are convoluted! What I meant is, I interpreted the assumption to be: If students accept criticism, they are more likely to learn.

But the answer is: Students are more likely to learn from criticism that they accept than from criticism they do not accept.

I still got the right answer, but my set up feels backward.

Carly

[WaltGrace1983]

Carly, I took a quick glance at your notations and I think that they are not correct. The problem is something that Mike Kim talked about way up there. To put it simply, your diagrams fail to appreciate the nuances of the argument. I didn't diagram this out until I was in the review stage but I'll share what I wrote. I don't know if it is right or wrong but I think it is close (which doesn't really mean much on the LSAT haha)

I went off of the assumption that if you are "more likely" to "respond positively" than you are "less likely" to respond negatively and vice versa.

Another thing to note is that the second premise is (A → RP) / (~RP → ~A)

CP = computer program
RP = respond positively
A = acceptance
L = learn

CP → (more likely) ~RP → (more likely) ~A → (more likely) ~L
~CP → (less likely) ~RP → (less likely) ~A → (more likely) L

What is in bold represents the assumption.

(B) "Showing compassion" is completely irrelevant

(C) "Knowing" is also completely irrelevant because we don't care what they know. We only care about what is. We know that people are more likely to respond positively to humans rather than computer programs. The argument is actually not assuming that they know who is criticizing them. Maybe critics write down their criticisms in a word document and the person reads it.

(D) and (E) both are no good because they not only do not talk about "learning," which is crucial, but they are completely out of scope. We know that we are ONLY talking about "negative criticism" generated by computers and humans. Who cares about how often these "negative criticisms" arise?