Q18 - it is impossible to do science

[clarafok]

hello,

could someone please explain why A is right?

this is how i eliminated A

do science (A) -> measuring (B) -> select units of measurement (C)
select units of measurement (C) is arbitrary
so science (A) is arbitrary

for A:
long hours of practice (A) -> develop musical skills (B) ->perform difficult music (C)
long hours of practice (A) is tedious
so performing difficult music (C) is tedious

i eliminated A thinking that the order was wrong. i thought that the argument said since C is something, so A is something. but the answer C says A is something, so C is something.i would've chosen A if it said "performing difficult music is tedious, so long hours of practice is tedious"

please tell me what i missed!

thanks in advance!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting! I really appreciate you laying out your thought process.

Remember: on application/matching questions, we care only about logical structure. You were on the right track here, but you got tripped up by (A) because you focused on the superficial order, rather than on its logical structure.

Your diagram for the original argument is spot on. So we're looking for something that matches this structure:

A --> B --> C
C is arbitrary
Therefore, A is arbitrary

Let's look at (A). Right off the bat, you've reversed the conditional relationship. We're told that long hours of practice are necessary for developing musical skill. So instead of practice --> skill, what we want is

develop musical skill --> long hours of practice

In other words, if you develop musical skill, you must have practiced.

Likewise the second statement: to perform difficult music, one must develop one's music skill. Again, you reversed it; it should be

perform difficult music --> develop one's skill

So what's happening here is that the order of the conditions has been reversed, but the logical structure is still the same. We can chain them together like this:

perform difficult music --> develop musical skill --> long hours of practice

Then we're told that since practice is tedious, performing difficult music is tedious.

A --> B --> C
C is tedious
Therefore, A is tedious

We have a match!

Does that answer your question?

[clarafok]

yes! thank you so much!

[Dmitriy.Oziransky]

Great explanation, I got this one wrong because I thought B matched the pattern but I can clearly see how A does.

2 quick questions if you dont mind:

I actually wrote out the diagram as A-->B-->C-->D
(D being arbitrary)
and deduced that A-->D instead of saying since C is arbitrary then A is like you did, is this wrong?

And also I thought B was a shorter version of the Stimulus:
Running an Expanding Business-->Advertise-->Expensive
so running a business is expensive.
On second glance I can see that the conclusion changes an expanding business to just business, so would B be an acceptable answer if it said "Hence it is expensive to run an expanding business" instead of just business?

Thanks for the help!

[noah]

I'll step in for Gilad, using his brilliance as my own and claiming all the fame and glory!

I actually wrote out the diagram as A-->B-->C-->D
(D being arbitrary)
and deduced that A-->D instead of saying since C is arbitrary then A is like you did, is this wrong?

This is how I did it as well. AOK!

And also I thought B was a shorter version of the Stimulus:
Running an Expanding Business-->Advertise-->Expensive
so running a business is expensive.
On second glance I can see that the conclusion changes an expanding business to just business, so would B be an acceptable answer if it said "Hence it is expensive to run an expanding business" instead of just business?

Thanks for the help!

It'd be better, but I think it'd be missing a segment. As you and I know, it should have a chain of four by the end.

[stevenlechter]

Hi,

Why isn't D right?
It seems to follow the same logical structure as A:
manager -> evaluate ppl -> subjective -> resented by people
manager -> resented by people

Thanks,
Steven

[noah]

Hi,

Why isn't D right?
It seems to follow the same logical structure as A:
manager -> evaluate ppl -> subjective -> resented by people
manager -> resented by people

Thanks,
Steven

Hi Steven, (D) is tricky. I had to think about it a couple of times.

Let's do a trick, I'll start (D)--paraphrased, and you finish it: It is impossible to be a boss without evaluating folks. Evaluating folks
is subjective. Therefore, people hate bosses because they resent ________________.

Got it?

It should say "being evaluating", but instead it says "being evaluated subjectively." The original has a chain of 3 elements, a characteristic is ascribed to the last element in the chain, and the conclusion is that it must then apply to the first. In (D), we have a characteristic ascribed to the relationship of the last two elements--people resent the subjective evaluations, not, as we'd want to see, subjective things in general.

Tough one!

[stevenlechter]

Hi Noah,

So D would be correct if it said: people resent managers because people resent subjective things?

Best,
Steven

[noah]

Hi Noah,

So D would be correct if it said: people resent managers because people resent subjective things?

Best,
Steven

That's a lot better.

FYI, I'm asking a colleague to check over my thinking on this--I think hurricane Sandy might have blown a screw loose...

[tangdanni422]

Sorry I have to ask some questions...

When I was reading the stimulus, I noticed a gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Following the chain of logics, we can deduce that to do science is arbitrary. But the conclusion is science is arbitrary. So it looks like we have to assume that science is arbitrary if doing science is arbitrary. For a sufficient assumption, it is like if doing something is arbitrary, then the thing itself would be arbitrary.

Is there any possibility that the thing itself is not arbitrary even if doing it is arbitrary? Am I overthinking this?

Because I think there is a gap in the stimulus, I chose B because it has a gap between running a business and running an expanding business.

The second question is does the number of segments in the argument really matters in a parallel reasoning question?

Thanks in advance!

[Garychou007]

Hi Noah,

So D would be correct if it said: people resent managers because people resent subjective things?

Best,
Steven

That's a lot better.

FYI, I'm asking a colleague to check over my thinking on this--I think hurricane Sandy might have blown a screw loose...

I think D) is wrong because the conclusion is a dependent clause and should be taken as a whole. If ppl resent manager --> ppl resent being evaluated subjectively.
Our stimulus' conclusion is written as sentence with independent clause. So we should separate the "since.." from "science is arbitrary" and treat "since" as one of the premises.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'll chime in with a slightly different take on (D) and some answers to the previous poster about (B) and parallel questions in general.

Here's my take on the original.
- in order to ever do X, you have to first do Y and Z.
- Z has a certain quality.
Thus, X has that same quality.

Here's a parallel argument:
"In order to get married, you have to figure out what food will be served, which requires contacting several caterers. Since contacting caterers is a chore, getting married must be a chore."

Our objection to all these arguments is, "Wait a sec - getting married is awesome! Yeah, I had to do some boring tasks to get there, but the finish line is dope!"

"Wait a sec - science is the opposite of arbitrary. It's one of the most organized, rational thought processes we have! Just because selecting a unit of measurement was arbitrary doesn't mean what we do with those units now is arbitrary"

With (A), "wait a sec - playing difficult music is GLORIOUS. Sure I had to put in some tedium to get to Carnegie Hall, but playing difficult music at Carnegie Hall is the opposite of tedious!"

The flaw in (D) is different ... we would say, "wait a sec - even if I accept that people resent being evaluated subjectively, how do I know THAT'S the reason people resent managers. Maybe there's a different reason they resent managers."

The truth value of (D) hinges on WHY people resent managers.

The truth value of the original conclusion is whether a thing has a certain quality.

Is getting married "a chore"?
Is doing science "arbitrary"?
Is playing difficult music "tedious"?

With (D), you're arguing over "Is X the reason for Y"?

To the previous poster's questions, (B) indeed has a language shift. Its correct conclusion would be "hence, it is expensive to run an expanding business".

But the original argument isn't guilty of a missing adjective.

If the original argument were something like
"Doing theoretical science requires computer modeling. Computer modeling is boring. Thus, it is boring to do science".

Whoa there, ALL science? We only talked about a SUBTYPE of science.

That's what (B) is doing. It's erroneously concluding that EVERY kind of business is expensive to run, when the evidence only convinces us that a certain SUBTYPE of business (expanding) is expensive to run.

The original isn't talking about subtypes of science. It's talking about necessary precursors. The means to the end.

The correct answer to parallel questions doesn't HAVE to have the same number of ingredients / connections, but it DOES the vast majority of the time. So consider that a very strong guiding principle when selecting your answer, but as always, stay flexible and pick what you judge to be the best of the five answers.

Hope this helps.

[mitrakhanom1]

Can somebody explain why answer choice C is wrong?

I diagrammed it as follows:

Permissible to sit--> on the park benches

on the park benches--> walk to them

walk to them--> walking on the grass

Permissible --> walk on the grass

Is C wrong because the first and third conditionals I have written are not conditionals?

[ohthatpatrick]

Exactly right.

What was making you think they were conditionals?

Better yet, how did you know you were right that the 2nd one IS a conditional?

Conditional logic happens whenever there is inflexible certainty.

Conditional rules:
if / when / whenever

Universals:
all / each / no / never

Guarantees:
then / will / ensures / leads to

Requirements:
must / only / needs / unless

So the 2nd sentence, saying "sitting on them REQUIRES walking to them" is definitely conditional.

But think a little more about the key noun/verb/adjective when you're writing your rules. You wrote that rule as:
on the park benches--> walk to them

It's more precise/parallel to think about the verb in both cases
(sit on them --> walk to them)

The 1st sentence has a wishy washy term, 'permissible'.

Your 'rule' kinda felt like you just put the arrow in the middle of a sentence.
Permissible to sit--> on the park benches

Try to read that back to yourself.

If it's permissible to sit, then I'm CERTAIN to be on a park bench?

The 3rd sentence says ONE WAY to get to the benches is walk on the grass. There's no command / no constant / no requirement.

Sorry if I'm sounding harsh. Just trying to clarify.

It's hard to emphasize conditional logic stuff without sounding like an uptight blowhard, because that's what conditional logic sounds like.

[DavidM254]

I'll chime in with a slightly different take on (D) and some answers to the previous poster about (B) and parallel questions in general.

Here's my take on the original.
- in order to ever do X, you have to first do Y and Z.
- Z has a certain quality.
Thus, X has that same quality.

Here's a parallel argument:
"In order to get married, you have to figure out what food will be served, which requires contacting several caterers. Since contacting caterers is a chore, getting married must be a chore."

Our objection to all these arguments is, "Wait a sec - getting married is awesome! Yeah, I had to do some boring tasks to get there, but the finish line is dope!"

"Wait a sec - science is the opposite of arbitrary. It's one of the most organized, rational thought processes we have! Just because selecting a unit of measurement was arbitrary doesn't mean what we do with those units now is arbitrary"

With (A), "wait a sec - playing difficult music is GLORIOUS. Sure I had to put in some tedium to get to Carnegie Hall, but playing difficult music at Carnegie Hall is the opposite of tedious!"

The flaw in (D) is different ... we would say, "wait a sec - even if I accept that people resent being evaluated subjectively, how do I know THAT'S the reason people resent managers. Maybe there's a different reason they resent managers."

The truth value of (D) hinges on WHY people resent managers.

The truth value of the original conclusion is whether a thing has a certain quality.

Is getting married "a chore"?
Is doing science "arbitrary"?
Is playing difficult music "tedious"?

With (D), you're arguing over "Is X the reason for Y"?

To the previous poster's questions, (B) indeed has a language shift. Its correct conclusion would be "hence, it is expensive to run an expanding business".

But the original argument isn't guilty of a missing adjective.

If the original argument were something like
"Doing theoretical science requires computer modeling. Computer modeling is boring. Thus, it is boring to do science".

Whoa there, ALL science? We only talked about a SUBTYPE of science.

That's what (B) is doing. It's erroneously concluding that EVERY kind of business is expensive to run, when the evidence only convinces us that a certain SUBTYPE of business (expanding) is expensive to run.

The original isn't talking about subtypes of science. It's talking about necessary precursors. The means to the end.

The correct answer to parallel questions doesn't HAVE to have the same number of ingredients / connections, but it DOES the vast majority of the time. So consider that a very strong guiding principle when selecting your answer, but as always, stay flexible and pick what you judge to be the best of the five answers.

Hope this helps.

Can't you say that the initial argument does the same as (D) in that it poses the same issue of a necessary condition being sufficient for the conclusion?

The initial argument uses "since" instead of "because", but it's still leaving open the same issue that the arbitrary quality of a measuring unit may not be the reason why science as a whole is arbitrary.

Would it be safer to say that (D) combines two conditions seen as separate in the stimulus (evaluation and subjectivity) into one necessary condition (subjective evaluation) and this does not accurately capture the two separate conditions?