Q19 - If you study history, then you will appreciate the vas

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: If you study history, you'll reflect on your own civilization.
Evidence: If you study history, you'll appreciate vast differences among past civilizations. If you reflect on your own civilization, you'll appreciate vast differences among past civilizations.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a weirdly worded argument. They're trying to set up a conditional logic flaw, in which the author provides us with two conditionals:
A --> B and C --> B.

Then the author erroneously concludes a connection between the triggers, "A --> C".

As we look at answer choices, my thought process would be,
"Are there two conditional premises, both of which lead to the same right side idea?
If not, bail. If so, does the conclusion make a conditional connection between the two triggers?"

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The two premise conditionals don't lead to the same idea.

(B) YES, "if learn Latin, better vocab" and "if study great works of lit, better vocab". Does conclusion tie those triggers together? Yes, "If study great works of lit, learn Latin".

(C) The two premises don't lead to the same idea (and one of them isn't even conditional … 'often'). Bail.

(D) The two premises don't lead to the same idea. One points to "internalize good habits" and the other points to "retain those good habits". Also, the conclusion doesn't connect the triggers "studying hard" and "maintaining a positive mental attitude".

(E) The two premises don't lead to the same idea. One points to "informed about the world" and the other points to "appreciation of cultures". Bail.

Takeaway/Pattern: Match the Flaw frequently tests conditional logic flaws. Here, the "if" in premise 1 and the "if" in the conclusion are easy to diagnose.

The tougher phrasing is premise 2: "provided that you do X, you will have Y". The word 'will' conveys certainty, so the arrow is pointing at Y. Saying that "provided you do X, you get Y" means that X is enough to bring about Y. X is sufficient.

If we set up the two premise conditionals correctly, then we can see the conditional flaw being committed and scan the answers aggressively for the same telltale traits.

#officialexplanation

[TaeC572]

As mentioned in the take away/patterns, I had to skip this first question because I didn't get the "provided that" part of the stimulus. Luckily when I returned, I picked up the correct conditional direction in that sentence. Once the correct conditional direction was established, the answer choice was much easier.

Maybe even when there is no usual conditional relationship indicator, test takers need to catch it by simply understanding the sentence.