Q16 - Everything that is commonplace and ordinary

[betsya1]

Can you help me understand why B is the answer?

[giladedelman]

I can!

We know that everything commonplace and ordinary fails to catch our attention. From this, the argument concludes that some things that fail to catch our attention must be miracles of nature. How did it get there? We know our assumption has to tie miracles of nature in somehow.

(B) is correct because if some commonplace/ordinary things are miracles of nature, and ALL commonplace/ordinary things fail to catch our attention, then there must be some things that both fail to catch our attention and are miracles of nature.

It's as if I said, all Americans speak English, and some Americans speak Pig-Latin. Well, then there must be some English-speakers who also speak Pig-Latin!

(A) gives us
O/C --> miracle ... that doesn't help us connect non-attention-catchers to miracles of nature.

(C) tells us less than we already know from the stimulus.

(D) just tells us
O/C <--> fails to catch our attention ... this doesn't tie miracles in at all!

(E) is sort of a negated version of the premise. Again, nothing to do with miracles of nature.

Does that answer your question?

[jamiejames]

I actually diagrammed this out could you see if this is correct?

all common place + ordinary --> Not catch attention.

some not catch attention --> miracles of nature.

so:

A -- > Not B

Not B ---> C

The reason B is correct is because it links up A-->C. So, some common place + ordinary --> miracles of nature, and that's B.

At least that's how I got the right answer haha ._.

[timmydoeslsat]

I wouldn't use a modifier on "everything that is common place and ordinary fails to catch our attention."

It can be validly diagrammed as:

CP and O ---> ~Catch Att
____________________________
MN SOME ~Catch Att

So we know that we have an assumption involving MN as we are concluding something about it yet do not have it in our evidence.

We can reach that some statement of MN and ~Catch Att by simply making a some statement with the CP and O.

[giladedelman]

Yes, I prefer this second diagramming approach, but I want to make the point that diagramming a question like this is probably not worth the time it takes. I think you might be better off trying to tackle this without a diagram.

[xmomo]

Is this the correct assumption of the argument: miracles of nature are commonplace and ordinary? Besides formal conditional logic, can you show me how A is wrong? Is it because it is the opposite of the assumption (that miracles of nature are NOT commonplace and ordinary)?

I had it down between A and B, but I picked A because of the strong language (I thought that B was too weak). Obviously, this turned out to be the wrong strategy. Do you suggest only looking at the language when we are down to two answers, or in the beginning while eliminating answers? Often or not, should we eliminate answers solely on language that are too strong (for nec questions) or too weak (for sufficient questions)?

Thank you!

[tommywallach]

Hey Xmomo,

Don't be too simplistic when it comes to "language". Your assumption is not quite right, because you went from SOME to ALL. Let's look at the argument once more:

Conclusion: Some things = BOTH -A + M

Premise: C+O = -A

To get from premise to conclusion, we need to know that SOME M=C+O (which can also be worded as Some C+O=M). Because anything C+O is also -A, that means some M = -A.

Notice that it isn't a question of choosing extreme language or kinda weak language JUST BECAUSE. We choose the one that fits what we need to bridge the gap in the argument.

As for answer choice (A), it tells us that everything OTHER than miracles is C+O. That's not helpful, because it means that M=-(C+O).

If miracles aren't C+O, then they aren't -A, which mean there are NOT things that are both M and -A.

Hope that helps!

-t

[northstardts]

I got this right and here was how I got there. Not sure if this logic is correct but here is what I mapped out..

Commonplace + Ordinary -> Fails to catch attn C -> F

Fails to catch attn -> Miracles of nature F-> MN

Therefore C -> MN

Because, if C then F, and if F, then MN, then if C then MN

[ephraimae]

[quote="giladedelman"]I can!

We know that everything commonplace and ordinary fails to catch our attention. From this, the argument concludes that some things that fail to catch our attention must be miracles of nature. How did it get there? We know our assumption has to tie miracles of nature in somehow.

(B) is correct because if some commonplace/ordinary things are miracles of nature, and ALL commonplace/ordinary things fail to catch our attention, then there must be some things that both fail to catch our attention and are miracles of nature.

It's as if I said, all Americans speak English, and some Americans speak Pig-Latin. Well, then there must be some English-speakers who also speak Pig-Latin!

(A) gives us
O/C --> miracle ... that doesn't help us connect non-attention-catchers to miracles of nature.

(C) tells us less than we already know from the stimulus.

(D) just tells us

Isn't it also possible to see D as a reversal of the logic in the premise

[ohthatpatrick]

You are definitely correct that (D) is a reversal of a conditional we were already given. And you’re correct to think that that probably makes for a very sketchy answer. But the fact that it’s reversed logic isn’t why it’s wrong. It’s wrong because it doesn’t create an airtight argument. And it doesn’t create an airtight argument because with (D), we still have never defined anything about "miracles of nature". So even though what you’re pointing out is valid, I would actually encourage you to think more in terms of Gilad’s original rationale, because that type of thinking will serve you much better on Sufficient Assumption questions.

If you develop the conviction that any new term/idea in the conclusion of a Sufficient Assumption argument MUST be in the correct answer, you’re going to find a ton of answers you can easily/quickly eliminate from a bird’s eye view.

Which requires less brain power / time:
- scanning D to see if it contains the phrase "˜miracles of nature’
or
- reading D, considering the directionality of its conditional logic, and comparing that back to what we were given in the argument