Q15 - Outsiders in any field often believe

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Inference (Most Strongly Supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
No experience → No creative solutions
Solve a problem → True understanding
No experience → No true understanding

Answer Anticipation:
It's uncommon to see conditional logic in a Most Strongly Supported question (other than Principle Inference questions), but when it's there, it's there.

I'd skip the first statement since there are 3 "all" statements, so I'm expecting my inference to come from a combination there - stronger statements are more able to lead to inferences. I'll circle back if needed.

A lot of these statements have overlap that can't be combined (as an example, the first and third conditionals share a Sufficient condition, so they can't be chained). However, I can take the contrapositive of the third to combine it with the second:
Solve a problem → True understanding → Experience
and the contrapositive of that
No experience → Can't solve problem

I'm expecting one of those to be the correct answer.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Unwarranted comparison. The argument talks about having or not having experience; it doesn't compare more experience to less experience.

(B) Illegal negation of the first statement (also, a degree shift to "rarely", though we can shift down and still make an inference).

(C) Bingo. This answer is the contrapositive of the first conditional. I wasn't expecting this (I was expecting to need to combine two conditionals to get my answer), but I can infer this statement (Creative solutions → Experience). I'd check the others to be sure, though.

(D) Out of scope/unwarranted comparison. The conditionals do speak to all fields, but it's still possible that the required experience is different in each field, as long as that level of experience is reached.

(E) Out of scope. I'd dump this answer with "should", as normative language isn't a part of the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Some Inference questions will rely on a single statement to lead to the answer, even if you can make an inference based on a combination of statements.

#officialexplanation

[ZarkaS555]

I did not think of the stimulus as one containing conditional language. Could you draw attention to the cues I should be looking for?

[AyakiK696]

I'm a little confused by this question, because the stimulus states that attempts at creative solutions by inexperienced people are FUTILE, not that they can't come up with creative solutions altogether? Or are we assuming that if a creative solution is brought up in a field, it must have been one that succeeded?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think you're reading 'solution' as 'an idea that might solve a problem'.
They're writing 'solution' as 'an idea that actually solved a problem'.

They're cautious in the second sentence to say "ATTEMPTS at creativity are futile if not grounded in experience". That's covering the class of people you're asking about, those who "came up with a creative solution that ultimately didn't work".

If an idea has not yet been tested, we can call it a potential solution.
If the idea has been tested and succeeded, we can call it a solution.
If the idea has been tested and proved futile, it would be a stretch to call it a solution.

You can kind of tell how we're supposed to interpret 'solution' by the contrast in the 1st vs. 2nd sentence.

1st: "they believe they can bring in fresh, USEFUL solutions"
2nd: "but in fact, they are FUTILE"

[ZaftigG65]

I believe this is why it is a "Most Strongly Supported" and not a "Must Be True". The answer is a bit of a jump. But obviously people in a field will only take solutions from people within the field if the statements are true. Who would want to waste their time testing a futile solution?