Q12 - Advertisement: When you need a will

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Fairly convoluted argument! We start by comparing will software favorably to lawyers - the software is cheaper. However, the author pivots and starts using an analogy of a doctor, where you wouldn't settle for "good enough" - you want the best. From this analogy, the author concludes that you should pay for a lawyer when you need a will.

Answer Anticipation:
Since this argument relies on comparing the doctor's advice to a lawyer's advice, we need to carry that analogy on. We learn that the benefit of the doctor is that they can tailor their advice to your situation. This argument actually tells us that that is a benefit of a lawyer as well, so we're not looking for an answer that makes the lawyer more similar to the doctor. The only other thing we can do, then, is look for an answer that makes the software dissimilar to the doctor.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Too strong. We don't need to know that lawyering is "at least as complex as". First off, the argument doesn’t bring up complexity (it deals with personalizing). Second, lawyering doesn't have to meet or exceed doctoring; if it was less than, but still close to, that might suffice.

(B) Why did the author argue to use a lawyer? Because a lawyer can tailor advice, similar to a doctor. If the software can do that just as well, we're back to square one. The negation here would be: DIY software can tailor a will to particular circumstances, which kills this argument.

(C) Half scope. Since we don't know if people who use a lawyer are similarly dissatisfied, we can't analyze the impact of this answer on the argument.

(D) Out of scope. This answer doesn't tell us whether this covers DIY wills, or ones made by lawyers.

(E) Opposite. First, this doesn't deal with lawyers at all, which is what the conclusion is all about. Second, the author uses the analogy to compare doctors and lawyers. We don't need there to be another analogy to a DIY will for the given analogy to hold.

Takeaway/Pattern: When an argument picks an option over another (here, lawyer over software), and it does so relying on a comparison, it has to establish that the chosen option is similar to the situation it's comparing it to, as well as that the unchosen option is dissimilar to that situation.

#officialexplanation

[sev]

This is an odd one. There must be something fundamental that I'm missing here, because E seems 100% correct and B seems at least slightly incorrect.

My rationale:

Why E is correct:
Claim: you should go to a lawyer to get your will written.
Support: you go to a doctor to get a prescription (because you want personalized advice).
Warrant: getting a prescription and a will are similar enough such that you should want personalized advice.

If E is false--that is, if you cannot get a valid prescription without a doctor--then the argument is unsupported. (Because you're not making a choice to see a doctor--you're forced to, regardless of whether or not *want* expert advice for your particular illness.) Ergo, E is necessary.

Why B is incorrect:
B is incorrect because it is not strictly necessary--it doesn't have to be true that DIY software cannot tailor a specific will as well as a lawyer can. It could also be true that DIY software can work just as well 99% of the time but the other 1% of the time messes things up so badly that the consequences are terrible and you want a lawyer to make sure that 1% of the time doesn't happen to you.

In response to the OP: the analogy between doctors and lawyers only holds if there's an analogy between prescriptions and wills. And second, necessary statements don't have to directly relate to the conclusion if they're necessary for a premise to be true.

[DylanO964]

B is definitely necessary for the Ad's conclusion to be true. The takeaway is that "a lawyer's expert advice is ALWAYS worth paying for". Why do you pay? The only advantage that the ad states is that much like doctors, lawyer's can provide expert advice on the subject. Computers can provide a valid but presumably minimal version of a will, just like you can find prescriptions that are valid without having the doctor provide expert advice concerning your illness. However, if we find just one instance out of a trillion where there is a computer who can perform the exact same function that is supposed to be a point of differentiation between lawyers and computers, the conclusion is no longer true. This question subtlety plays on your understanding of all and not all statements. The conclusion states all, answer choice B eliminates a possibility where it is not always worth it to pay for the lawyer. You only need one case where computer=lawyer to invalidate this Ad's conclusion.

[sev]

However, if we find just one instance out of a trillion where there is a computer who can perform the exact same function that is supposed to be a point of differentiation between lawyers and computers, the conclusion is no longer true. (...) You only need one case where computer=lawyer to invalidate this Ad's conclusion.

See, this is only true if we also assume that you can know when a computer can adequately perform the same function. If, as I mentioned above, it's a question of risk (i.e. it'll get it right 99/100 times but the 1/100 will cost you drastically) then the conclusion holds just fine without AC (B) because it's still worth getting an attorney to avoid the disadvantage.

[GlenH807]

When i did this question i seemed to notice two assumptions. The first was answer B and the second is related to the idea of satisfaction in the stimulus: is the author also assuming that most people are striving for satisfaction when creating wills?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, it feels like if he's using this analogy, he's thinking,

in both cases, you could get something valid for cheaper,
in both cases, the more expensive option is capable of customization that the cheaper option is not.
in both cases, the customization of the more expensive option is worth paying for.

And he presumably thinks that consumers deciding on where to buy their will-writing serve are seeking the same satisfaction of customization that occurs when consumers decide on their medical care.

If we get less nerdy about it, the author is assuming that the more expensive will option is worth more money.

These secondary assumptions about, "Are we seeking to achieve value when we purchase something" are technically valid, but they're not as suspect, because they're common sense assumptions.

So if you're real good at identifying missing axioms, but some of those axioms seem very common sense, focus more on the dubious ones.

The biggest vulnerability of this argument is how extreme a claim it makes in the conclusion: "A lawyer is ALWAYS worth paying for"?

There isn't A SINGLE human whose lack of possessions / relatives / final wishes who wouldn't be totally covered by a do-it-yourself will?

The author really needs to assume (B) in order to establish the sketchiest idea he's leaning on: using a lawyer for your will ALWAYS give you a better result.