Q15 - Carla: Professors at public universities

[lichenrachel]

The answer choice claims that David's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it ignores the part of Carla's remarks that could provide an answer to David's question. But in David's argument he states that "even if you are right about the beneficial effects of research", which include the "improvement of teaching quality" argument by Carla. So there is evidence that David considers Carla's whole argument but still doubts why he should direct the financial resource to sponsor research. Doesn't this mean David's objection lies somewhere else?

I originally chose A at first sight, but later due to the above consideration changed it to B. Can someone explain it to me?

[giladedelman]

Great question. I had the same thought when I looked at this problem.

David asks why a public university's scarce resources should be devoted to professors taking time off from teaching. In other words, even if research is so great, why should the university spend public money to support it when it means teachers aren't teaching?

The second part of Carla's comments address this objection: the fact that time off for research improves teacher quality could be a reason for the public university to support it.

So David does seem to be ignoring this part of Carla's comments. It's not just that research has beneficial consequences; rather, it also has benefits that are directly applicable to the professor's role as a teacher. So (A) is correct.

Imagine if you said to me, "Hybrid cars are more eco-friendly and will get you better gas mileage, so you should buy one." Then imagine that I replied, "Even if you're right about hybrid cars, why should I buy one?"

Wouldn't that be a bizarre response? You just told me why I should buy a hybrid car. Maybe I have other reasons for disagreeing, but my response suggests that you didn't give me any reason. The same thing is happening here in this exchange between Carla and David.

This is also a good opportunity to practice our "wrong to right" philosophy. Can't we get rid of the four wrong answers?

(B) is incorrect because David doesn't assume that professors' only function is teaching. He doesn't assume, for example, that professors don't need to write books or advise students. He just objects to the university paying them to take time off from teaching.

(C) is out of scope. David's comment is not about where all professor funding comes from.

(D) is incorrect because David doesn't assume that research is the only function of paid leaves of absence. He just doesn't apparently think it justifies those paid leaves.

(E) is way out of scope. Vacations?

So, does that clear up this very difficult question for you? Let me know if you're still unconvinced.

[interestedintacos]

The second part of Carla's comments address this objection: the fact that time off for research improves teacher quality could be a reason for the public university to support it.

I don't think that's correct. The second sentence (including the part you reference) is the part that David responds to. Both the part you mention and the other part are benefits of research. David agrees with that part of the argument--that research has benefits.

David ignores the first sentence (this is what answer choice A is referring to): that paid leave will allow the research to happen

David says: research is good, but why give professors paid leaves!? Well, as Carla said, paid leaves will allow the research to happen. Even if other methods will also allow for research, potentially with lesser costs, David completely ignores the idea that paid leaves will allow for research. Read his statement strictly again and you'll see this.

What we really have here is a super simple question--it's so simple that it's easy to miss.

[giladedelman]

Yeah, I think you're right! Cool! Thanks for helping me with this one.

[daniel]

Is an argument core required in order to make an assumption? Is it safe to say that (B), (D), and (E) can be eliminated on the basis that since there is no argument, there is no assumption being made? Or, is it still necessary to consider whether the assumption stated in the answer choices are relevant to David's response?

Or, should we see that there is an argument implied in his response? If so, can someone help me identify the implied argument core?

[ohthatpatrick]

It seems accurate to say that if there's no argument/reasoning, then there are no assumptions (although I'll note an exception at the end of this).

But there are also times when you can't physically POINT to a conclusion or a premise, but there IS still an implied one.

However, in this question, I kinda have a hard time categorizing David's response as any sort of argument.

If I wanted to stretch it into an argument, I would probably say something like
CONC:
I'm unconvinced that we should allocate limited resources to allow professors to take time off from teaching
PREM:
Because even though research has benefits, I'm unconvinced.

This is a wretchedly bad argument core. There really would be no premise, because the remark about research's benefits is more conceding a counterpoint. The "premise" I invented of "I'm unconvinced" would just make this a circular argument.

So I think it's pretty fair to say that David gave us no argument, and thus (B), (D), and (E) could be rejected on that technicality.

One exception to this "no argument = no assumptions" logic might be if we got a claim (not an argument) that took the form of a prediction.

If David just predicted "paying professors to take time off to do research will not be cost effective in the long run", that prediction could probably be said to assume that the money/prestige earned from any potential research done by the professors would not offset the expense of their paid time off.

However, in this case, David doesn't make a prediction. He just asks a question. Good thought about (B), (D), and (E), although I wouldn't suggest trying to find similar usages for that strategy in the future, as they would be exceedingly rare.