Q16 - Software reviewer: Dictation software

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Dictation does NOT save time/energy.
Evidence: Dictation does nothing for the thinking phase. And what time you save in typing gets made up for by extra time spent needing to proofread the dictated text.

Answer Anticipation:
They're asking about the main conclusion.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) What is the "other" conclusion? The final two sentences are the supporting ideas, and it's not like one supports the other. The easiest way to tell this is by looking at what keyword joins them. In this case, it's "and", which means two things are on the SAME level, not different levels, of the argument.

(B) Yup!

(C) There's only one conclusion, and it is the claim they're asking about.

(D) Not a premise.

(E) Not a premise.

Takeaway/Pattern: Because Determine the Function questions often DO ask about intermediate conclusions, some people will probably force themselves to pick A or C, fearing that maybe this is one of those problems. To diagnose whether something is a conclusion, make sure it has its own supporting idea and that it's there to support some other idea. Also, pay attention to keywords. The fact that the conclusion is followed by two idea joined by an "and"means that neither of those supporting ideas is "above" the other.

#officialexplanation

[shirando21]

I missed on this one.

Can anyone analyze the structure of this argument?

[ohthatpatrick]

It's helpful to know the general tendency with the structure of Role of the Claim arguments (same tendency for Main Conclusion questions):

The conclusion normally comes before the premise(s), or what I like to call "an upside-down argument".

Moreover, many of these will start with a counterpoint and then use a but/yet/however before the conclusion.

The structure of this one is this:
1st sentence - just a background fact explaining what dictation software is.

2nd sentence - part one (although it's been promoted as time saving) = counterpoint, part two (it fails to live up to its hype) = conclusion.

3rd and 4th sentences = premises ... they explain why dictation has failed to live up to its hype.

When we look at the question stem, we see the claim they're asking us about is the conclusion.

That gets rid of (C), (D), and (E).

The choice between (A) and (B) is based on whether or not this argument had an intermediate conclusion.

It did not.

Arguments with intermediate conclusions have 2 premises, but one premise supports the other, which in turn supports the main conclusion.

Premise 1 --> Premise 2 (intermed. conc) --> Main Conc

When this is the structure, the 1st premise leads into the 2nd with a since/because or a thus/hence/so type indication.

This argument, though, has two premises connected by "and". That just makes it this sort of argument:
Prem1 + Prem 2 --> Main Conc

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have follow-up questions.

[coco.wu1993]

I selected A. It makes perfect sense to me that, because the laborious part of writing is in the thinking & editing, any time saved in typing is made up for proofreading. Any thought?

[ohthatpatrick]

Try to apply "The Why Test" to those last two ideas to see if one supports the other.

"The laborious part of writing is thinking/editing, not typing."
Why?
"Because proofreading dictation software's error-filled output is ..."

Say what?

That 2nd line doesn't make any sense as answer to the question 'Why'.

In order for the 'laborious' line to be an intermediate conclusion, the author would need to give us a reason why thinking/editing takes more effort than typing.

Instead, the last sentence is about proofreading dictation software errors.

You could try those two ideas in reverse and also see that second to last sentence doesn't work as an explanation for the last sentence.

You can tell they can't support each other because they're on completely different topics.

2nd to last: which is a more laborious part of writing? typing or thinking/editing

Last: do you end up saving time by using dictation software or does proofreading the error-filled output negate the time you saved by not typing?

If you revisit the actual structure of the argument, the main conclusion says
"Dictation software fails to be a labor-saving invention"
why?
1. The real labor involved in writing is the thinking/editing (which dictation software doesn't help with)

2. You have to check the software's output for errors, so the time you DID same typing is offset by the time you now have to spend fixing the errors.

Those two points are attacking the conclusion in different ways
1. Software doesn't address the source of the problem (doesn't address the most laborious part)
2. Software adds NEW labor into the process of writing (now you have to check the output for error)

Hope this helps.