Q17 - Being articulate has been

[shaynfernandez]

I have a very odd way of looking at this argument that hopefully someone will see as helpful.

The flaw in this argument is that the author is against a commonly held view based on evidence that we do not know is relevant.

Argument looks like this:
1. (counter-premise) being articulate is often equated with a large vocab"
2. (supporting premise) "HOWEVER (indicating the previous premise is counter) those with large vocabs don't have an incentive and don't engage in creative self expression which is REQUIRED when vailable words are inadequate"
3. THUS, a large vocab is a hindrance to using language in an articulate way.

When look at this argument I am looking for the assumption, I see evidence that really doesnt seem to fit or evidence I don't really know is valid that the author uses to state his case. That evidence is self expression is necessary/ required when available words are inadequate. Ok... But he doesn't prove that he just states it like its relevant.

So in order to see how he uses this evidence it helps to take the abstract and put it in diagram form.

NOTE: this is not a traditional conditional argument it's a loose conditional it uses middle language of tend, equated, etc. do not read this as absolute just read it as how the author uses his evidence as an assumption to form a logical chain.

Variables:
X: being articulate
Y: having a large vocab
V: words inadequate
Z: creative expression

Let's readdress the argument using variables

1. The author is refuting this that X has been equated with Y
2. HOWEVER Y doesn't have Z and we know Z is required for V
In diagram form: Y--> ~Z the other statement V-->Z
3. THUS Y hurts X
Diagramed as Y--> ~X or contrapositive X--> ~Y

What's important about this is not the absolute but just the structural relationship in this type of argument.

From this we can see that a logical chain is not present, which tells us something must be assumed.

Most necessary assumptions the assumption is protecting or defending against another explanation, this time the assumption is working more as a chain builder.

To connect Y--> ~X we have to assume the point in premise to is relevant that Y forms a chain: Y--> ~Z --> ~V

So we can see the assumption is that ~V --> ~X or X--> V

The chain has been completed: Y--> ~Z --> ~V --> ~X

We have completed this question without even addressing the answer choices.

A) gives us this assumption in the form of X-->Z--> V which in contrapositive form is our chained assumption to If Y

B) just boosts our premise with Y--> ~Z

C) starts with MOST which is already a bad start then introduces a compound conditional which was clearly not present in our complete chain, easily eliminate.

D) starts out of scope and continues by restating the conclusion as we diagrammed it Y--> ~X

E) starts out out of scope and I introduces a new relationship that was never present and is not helpful to our conclusion

Again this isn't a technique to use because diagramming is not very time efficient especially without absolute conditionals. However, this tool is useful upon review to see how arguments are often structured, and this argument is very very common. Introducing a point in order to refute it upon evidence that we do not know is relevant.

Hope this helps

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, I think your logic checks out perfectly.

Great job predicting the missing link, and thank you for issuing several disclaimers that this is NOT the sort of argument that naturally lends itself to conditional logic.

I think you very eloquently addressed the common pattern involved in arguments that try to Disagree with a Position / or Refute a Claim.

The structure is almost always:
i. some people say / many ppl think / it is commonly assumed ... [claim X]
ii. but/yet/however ... I disagree with claim X
iii. here's a premise (that is dubiously relevant to claim X)

For example:
Some people think that democracy is a system that tolerates dissidence. But they're wrong. After all, democracies don't normally allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Assumption/Objection?
What does "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" have to do with "tolerating dissidence"?

I think the shortest way to the answer would just be to recognize, as you did, the missing link of relevancy that would connect the premise "lacking creative self-expression" to the conclusion, "using language in a truly articulate way".

If we just scan the answers for "truly articulate", we would only find (A) as a contender.

Discussing who is "most articulate" as (C) does is not the same as whether one is "truly articulate".

Discussing how to make one "more articulate" is not the same as whether one is "truly articulate".

And (B) and (E) don't have any link to the conclusion.

Great work, though. I enjoyed your structural dissection.

[Mab6q]

I'm going to write out my own explanation as punishment to myself for missing this question.

This is a necessary assumption question, meaning we are looking for an answer choice that is REQUIRED for the argument to follow.

Conclusion: a large vocab is a hindrance to using language in an articulate way. (large vocab --> ~articulate manner

WHY: large vocab --> ~linguistic self self expression --> ~no available words seem adequate.

Assumption: articulate manner --> no available words seems adequate --> linguistic self expression.

The author did not connect these pieces of evidence so we should be on the lookout for an answer choice that makes that connection, keeping in mind that the correct answer choice does NOT HAVE to since this is a necessary, not a sufficient, assumption question.

A. articulate --> their vocab seems inadequate. This is perfect match of the assumption we wanted. If we negate this, and articulate --> ~vocan seems inadequate, it would destroy the argument.

B. "creatively in new situations" is not what we have in out stimulus.

C. most articulate?? Always be wary when you seen most on an AC for a necessary assumption question. This is wrong for a bigger reason as the tells us that it's possible to have large vocab -- > articulate, which is contrary to our stimulus.

D. This is tempting. The problem here is that "increasing the size of their vocab" is not the same as "have a large vocab". Not what we want.

E. this seems to challenge one of premises, which is not what we want. It certainly is not necessary.

Keep at it!

[WaltGrace1983]

D. This is tempting. The problem here is that "increasing the size of their vocab" is not the same as "have a large vocab". Not what we want.

In addition though, (D) is just plain out of scope. We do not care about "educating people." That is way out of left field!