Q17 - Biographer: Arnold's belief that

[soyeonjeon]

Is the reasoning error here that the stimulus justifies a conclusion merely based on a personal experience and not by some evidence?
Also, why would A not qualify as an answer choice?

Thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're close, but we probably need to be a little more specific than "belief vs. evidence" or else there may be multiple answers that qualify.

I think the argument was analogous to this:
Ben is scared to go into the garage alone because he thinks there is an axe murderer in there. This may seem far-fetched, but in fact this belief is a consequence of the fact that Ben watched a movie last week in which there was an axe murderer hiding in a garage. In light of this, Ben's fear that there is an axe murderer in his garage is clearly justified.

This conclusion is making it sound like Ben really does have legitimate grounds for worrying that there's an axe murderer in the garage.

But he doesn't. He's just still scared from a movie.

The fact that we can explain the source of his fear doesn't make it a legitimate fear.

Similarly, the conclusion of Q17 makes it sound like Arnold has legitimate grounds for thinking his colleagues are two-faced frauds.

But he doesn't. He's just all messed up from childhood.

I think there's a distortion here between "offering an explanation for someone's behavior/thoughts" and "saying that the behavior/thoughts are justified".

Let me know if you don't see the distinction there.

So I would be looking for this list of ingredients for my correct answer:
prem - Person X has some potentially wrong-headed notion.
prem - There is a silly reason that Person X developed that wrong-headed notion.
conc - That wrong-headed notion is justified.

(A) explains that Sheldon has a notion, and explains that it was instilled in him during childhood. BUT, (A) offers another piece of info that DOES strengthen the legitimacy of that notion.

In the original example, Arnold has no good real-world reason to believe his colleagues are being insincere. Sheldon, meanwhile, has a good real-world reason to believe that good vocab gets you to the top: top execs tend to have better vocab.

(B) is similar to (A). Emily developed a notion from a childhood experience, but there is now real-world evidence (the bit about pesticides) that her notion is correct.

(C) This is worth keeping. Joan developed a notion from a childhood experience. There is no good real-world reason for her to believe that "cats are bad pets". And the argument thinks that her childhood experience is justification enough.

(D) Again, there is a real-world study that lends credence to the notion many adults hold about misbehavior.

(E) Sumayia has some legitimate ways to support her opinions about Anthony. She is familiar with the work ethic of concert pianists, having been exposed to several of them, including her parents.

Hope this helps.

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great response Patrick! That cleared up a lot, especially why the answer I picked (E) was incorrect.

One quick question if you get the chance. I eliminated (C) because it seemed like the argument was saying that Joan's childhood belief was what was being justified while the stimulus was saying that Arnold's present belief about his colleagues was what was being justified. I automatically crossed off C because it seemed like this factor was a big enough hurdle to disqualify C from being a match. I was wondering what your thoughts were about this? Also, do you have any tips about how close the answer choice actually has to parallel the stimulus in order for it to be a match?

Thanks!!

[ptraye]

answer choice C does mention Joan's past with her father; but, in the second sentence it says the past influences her "present belief."

so, answer choice C is talking about Joan's present belief in relation to her past experience.