Q13 - Using rational argument in advertisement

[lhermary]

I'm trying to understand why E is correct.

Stimulus

Rational argument -> ~Persuade people
~Rational argument -> persuade people

E)
~Learn to program a computer -> reading poorly written directions

~Read poorly written directions -> learn to program a computer

Where did I go wrong?

Thanks

[gilad.bendheim]

you set up the first conditional of (E) backwards.
The first line reads: "people never learn to program a computer by reading poorly written directions."
We diagram this as: Poorly Written --> ~Learn to Program

The second line "if people read well written directions, they will learn to program" is diagrammed as: ~Poorly Written --> Learn to Program.

So we have the Mistaken Negation in both the stimulas and choice (E).

The 'never' of the first line tripped you up because it made the necessary condition come first in the sentence. But think about it for a second reworded into if->then and it will make more sense. Does it follow logically that 'if I never learn to program a computer' then 'I must have read poorly written directions'? No! Maybe I had amazing instructions but I was playing World of Warcraft the whole time. On the other hand, 'if I had poorly written instructions' it stands to reason that 'then I wont learn to program.'

Another similarity (problem) with both the stimulas and choice (E) is that the negations are not actually logically sound, so that even if the Mistaken Negation was a valid logical move, they still would likely not be logically true statements. The opposite of 'rational' is actually 'NOT rational' and the opposite of 'poorly written' is actually 'NOT poorly written'. These might sound like the same as IRrational and WELL written, but they aren't. Something NOT poorly written can be standard, as opposed to the idea that it is actually WELL written. Similarly, something NOT rational can be a more neutral statement than something that is IRRATIONAL. (Here is an attempt at an example, though it might be awful: If I say I think I can play Center for the NY Giants this sunday, that might be a Not-Rational statement. After all, I dont weight 300 pounds, dont know the plays, am not a professional football player etc. But that doesn't mean it is IRRATIONAL, in that, perhaps if I were the only person left in NY and they needed someone to just stand there, I theoretically could fill the position.)

Hope this helps!

[josh.randall52]

Is C wrong because it doesn't present another option? It just says not to do the same option. I took the passage in a broad sense as, doing something doesn't work, so if you do he opposite, it will work.

E matched up w/ my reasoning in that sense. C was my next AC, but it did not present another option. I don't know if that is the best way to look at the question, but it worked for me.

Also, how do I verify that I bought a Manhattan book? Isn't that one of the ways you can change the color of your username and alert the teachers on this website that you responded to a question? I see where teachers say they can't answer something b/c the users haven't bought anything Manhattan.

[liq419]

Just my two cents:

rational argument----> ~ persuade A----> ~B
~rational argument---> persuade ~A---> B

(A) Wrong
Ask for favors---> refused A---> B
~ refused---> ~ asked favors ~A----> ~B

(B) Past vs. future
Irrelevant comparison

(C) "Should" Prescriptive conclusion. Different type of conclusion as Stimulus.
Stim said "will persuade people..." NOT "should persuade people..."
If Stim said, "therefore, we should use nonrational appeals...." then (C) might be correct.

(D) ~ good LOR----> ~job
better LOR----> better job (this conclusion is about "better", it's not an absolute conclusion, it's different from stimulus)