Q13 - The dean of computing

[peg_city]

Any idea on how to dissect this one? I used inferences which took way to long (I probably spent 2-3 minutes on reading and answer 13, although I got it right).

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

The conclusion is what will help to guide us on this one.

It has very forceful language of must be from the university's computer science department.

We know that the dean of computing has to have 2 necessary conditions: 1) Must be respected for AS 2) Competent to oversee the use of computers on campus

We are also told that the only deans AS respect are those with doc degrees. The only = sufficient condition, so we know that if AS respect ---> Doc Degree

In the same manner, we are adding another necessary condition to one of those 2 qualifications, with Comp. to oversee ---> Really knows about comps

We are told later that the hiring will come from the university staff.

In no way can we conclude that the dean of computing is must be a professor from computer science. This is where our assumption comes into play.

If you negate E for it to state that those with Doc. Degrees, not only those in comp science dept really know about computers, then it ruins the conclusion of "must" be from comp science.

Wrong answer choices:

A) We are told about the qualification for academics respecting a dean, not true of overall people.
B) Not necessary for all.
C) Not necessary for all. Just need 1.
D) Reverse logic

[demetri.blaisdell]

Looking good, timmydoeslsat.

Just want to run through those answer choices again to really knock 'em out of the park.

We need a necessary assumption for the conclusion that the new dean must come from the computer science department.

We know 1) she's coming from the faculty, 2) she has to know computers, and 3) she has to be respected by academics (so she has to have a PhD).

So our necessary assumption will equate professors from the computer science department with some or all of those conditions.

(A) is expanding on the premise. We already know that academics respect deans who have PhDs and we only care about deans.

(B) tells me something about all professors. But this actually undermines the conclusion somewhat. If every professor in every department has a PhD, that's more people who are at least partially qualified for the job.

(C) is good from afar but far from good. This tells me the computer science department is qualified but it doesn't tell me that they're the only department that's qualified. Also, it's not necessary that all of them be qualified, just that their department is the only one with any qualified people.

(D) is like (B) in that it's too general. I already know what it takes for a dean to be respected. I don't care about a more general statement.

(E) fits like a glove. The only people who have PhDs and know computers are in the computer science department.

Bonus question: But is (E) a sufficient assumption?

Hope this helps!

Demetri

[ericha3535]

Answer to your question Demetri, I would say: Necessary

Again, the gap in this argument is, there are 3 qualifications to be the Dean of computing.
1) Respected by the academic
2) Competent
3) From the university

Also,

1) Respected by the academic-> hold DD
2) Competent -> You gotta know computer.

But why does the computer professor have to be chosen? Why can't a custodial guy from comp. dept who knows java be chosen?
Thus, this argument is ultimately committing the exclusivity fallacy.

Now, the answer choice E says: if you hold DD, from this university and know computers, then you are a professor from computer dept.

Sounds like a sufficient assumption...

But wait...

Holding DD and knowing computer does not guarantee that you are respected and competent. So, you are not really meeting the actual dean of computer qualifications.

But at least having those 2 qualifications are required.

Thus, it's necessary assumption.

[dean.won]

Isnt E nec but not suf because not all ppl with DD are profs?

[Mab6q]

I'm having a hard time seeing how E is necessary. Yes, it's the best answer, but is it necessary? Couldnt we say that not only those in the computer science department really know about computers, but only those in the computer science department are respected. That would mean that everyone else who is not in the computer science department would not be respected and therefore could not be the dean.

[tommywallach]

Hey Nab,

Nope. This is very necessary. The logic goes like this:

1) Dean of computing must be competent to oversee computers.

2) Anyone competent to oversee computers must really know about computers.

3) Then suddenly, they're saying the professor must be from the university's computer science department.

For that to be true, we'd need to know that the only people who really know about computers are in the computer science department. Otherwise, we could choose someone from a different department. That's exactly what (E) says.

NOW, you could argue that there could still be people in other departments who really know about computers, but they could be removed because they don't hold doctoral degrees, but that's why (E) starts out by saying "among this university's staff members with doctoral degrees." So we've already removed the people without doctoral degrees.

Hope that helps!

-t

[Mab6q]

Ahh I see it now. Sometimes it's good to put a question away and return to it in a few days. Thanks.

[brainwvs]

The only problem is that e is not the correct answer. A is.

[tommywallach]

Uh...nope! : )

It's E.

-t