Q18 - People who have political power

[skapur777]

Really confused by this one. How is the answer B? I picked C, thinking that those who have technical ingenuity and ethical inventiveness would bring both pain and benefits to a given person. But I know that's bad logic and I have no idea how to solve this one!

[bbirdwell]

Well, first let me write this argument down in shorthand. You don't have to do this to get it right, I just think it could be helpful explaining it.

ppl w/power ---> new tech protects/extends power AND ethical args/ideas threats to power

THEREFORE
tech ingenuity ---> benefits those who have ingenuity
ethical inventiveness ---> brings pain to those who have it

Before going to the choices, consider potential gaps in the argument so you have an idea of what weak points a good answer might address. The part of the conclusion that sticks out to me is the mention of benefits and pain. The only evidence I have is about powerful people. The conclusion is about two other groups of people. This connection cannot be taken for granted -- that's called making an assumption.

So, without stating it in any more detail, I'm gonna go to the choices with that in mind -- the connection between "people with power" and "benefits/pain to techies/ethicists" is very, very weak. A good strengthen answer will tie those two together somehow.

(A) is a bit out of scope with the phrase "justifying power," and doesn't make a connection back to "powerful people." Perhaps folks with ethical innovations could justify political power. In that case, this answer would actually weaken!

(B) Ah. We already know that powerful ppl generally see innovative tech as a benefit and ethics as a threat. This choice says that those powerful people reward those who are useful to them (new tech that extends power) and punish those they believe are a threat (ethical inventors). THIS gives us reason to believe that tech innovators will indeed benefit, and ethical inventors will indeed experience pain. In a sense, then, this choice is a close-but-no-cigard answer for an assumption question, and not a strengthener at all.

Notice that strengthen answers don't have to make the argument completely valid, like a sufficient assumption question. They just have to help.

(C) is a tempting choice because it seems to state an assumption hidden in the argument regarding "only pain." However, if we look closely this isn't actually the case. Even if someone is both a techie and an ethicist, we have no evidence to suggest that they will not experience "only pain." Note how the conclusion actually says that the techies "usually" get benefit. Perhaps the exception is when they are also ethically inventive, and the pain factor overrides the benefits and they in fact experience only pain.

We could avoid the trap of choosing (C) by being a bit more clear up front of what we need. This choice doesn't at all address the connection we identified earlier -- powerful people to benefit/pain.

(D) weakens!

(E) so what?

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

I am completely lost. I agree with the explanation above. But I understood the argument in a completely different way.

I thought that :

Premise #1 - People who have political power => think new tech is good for their power

Premise #2 - People who have political power => think/see ethical arguments as bad.

Conclusion #1a = technical ingenuity brings benefits to THOSE WHO HAVE THIS INGENUITY

Conclusion #1b = ethical Inventiveness brings only paid to THOSE WHO have this inventiveness.

In other words, I thought that the argument is saying that by connecting elements in premise and conclusion, the politicians get benefited because they THEMSELVES can extend their power ( politicians are those who possess technical ingenuity). Similarly, Element is bad because this connection brings bad stuff to the politicians ( politicians are those who possess ethical inventiveness). HEnce, they are inclined to not use it. Hence, I thought that E) is a good answer choice, because a greater number of politicians would be inclined to not use ethical inventiveness.


Thoughts? I am a bit lost Please help.

[Mab6q]

I can't believe you wrote "so what" for E, I think it deserves an explanation.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Mab6q, I agree!

(E) does not strengthen the argument as much as answer choice (B) for two reasons: first, it doesn't address the issue of benefits bestowed on technical inventiveness; second, it's phrased too weakly--the word "many" weakens the answer choice to possibly just two people.

Hope that helps!

[Mab6q]

Thank you, and let me add a third reason. The stimulus guarantees that those who ET will be guaranteed pain. However, we know that these people have have this characteristic, but they choose to keep it inside, and as such, they don't receive pain. Arguments logic breaks down.

[civnetn]

I see this question a bit differently. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's the only way I seem to be able to reconcile what's going on.

Premise #1 - People who have political power => think new tech is good for their power

Premise #2 - People who have political power => think/see ethical arguments as bad.

While I agree with how the premises have been phrased, I think the language of the conclusions make them difficult to properly understand.

Conclusion #1a = technical ingenuity brings benefits to THOSE WHO HAVE THIS INGENUITY.

I don't think this is correct. When I first got this question wrong I was really confused by what they meant. If you phrase the conclusion as closely to the stimulus text as possible, this seems correct but I think it's misleading. I ready this part of the stimulus at first as, "If you're an ingenious person and you gain or become involved with technology you will benefit." And I don't think that's entirely correct at all.

I think a more proper phrasing would be:

Conclusion #1a = technical ingenuity is a benefit if you have it.

In other words, if you have technology you will benefit

Conclusion #1b = ethical Inventiveness brings only paid to THOSE WHO have this inventiveness.

Similarly:

Conclusion #1b = ethical Inventiveness will bring pain if you have it..

In other words, if you bring ethics into the situation, you'll experience pain.

It's as simple as:

Technology = benefit
Ethics = pain

Combined we have:

Premise #1 - People who have political power => think new tech benefits their power.

Premise #2 - People who have political power => think ethical arguments threaten (pain) their power.

Therefore, if you have technology you will usually benefit and if you ethics you will always experience pain


Analysis:

This is a horrible argument. So many things are being assumed it's crazy. There's absolutely nothing linking the conclusion to the premise. I hesitate to call it an argument because it's really just a bunch of facts strung together to sounds like they're an argument. I think this is what's so tricky about this question. Usually with strengthen questions, after strengthening them they're pretty damn strong. You go, "Yeah that answer choice makes EVERYTHING work." That's not the case here. This is such a horrible argument that even after you add the strengthening assumption, there are still going to be other huge assumptions that argument makes that can make it seem like it's still as horrible of an argument as before.

So many things are being assumed:

Assumption #1 - This is big one folks. The author is assuming people with political power have the ability to influence the vast majority of people in a tangible way. This is the assumption that if you don't recognize, will royally f you over on this question because it changes how you perceive the entire scenario. It's easy to miss this assumption because we tend to bring our own experiences into arguments. Sure, technically I know that politically powerful people influence me, but I really don't have that much experience with them affecting me in a tangible way. It's not like I'm so in contact with politics that if I become an ethicist I'm going to be seen as a threat. Like, on what possible world would that be the case??? But that's what this argument is assuming. It's assuming that politicians have a direct and tangible effect on a vast majority of people.

I didn't realize this and so I put myself in the place of the politician. I didn't understand the question because I thought, "Well how on earth can a politician be representative of everyone? Isn't that an assumption they're making? I mean I understand if I'm a politician I'm going to benefit from technology and feel threatened by ethics, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE is going to feel that way."

So I had already ffd myself over. I was looking at the problem from the opposite perspective. Instead of imagining myself as a politician, I should have been imagining myself as a civilian who is directly and tangibly affected by people with political power.

Unfortunately, this assumption isn't brought up in the answer choices, so even when you choose the smaller assumption outlined in answer choice (B) which is basically a re-statement of the premises) with the added aspects of reward and punish you're not going to going to chose this answer because it's going to seem wrong. You're going to think, "Well, who cares if powerful people reward and punish, benefits and threats? They're still not representative of everyone!"

Only if you understand both assumptions being made can you choose the correct answer