Q19 - People who receive unsolicited advice

[b91302310]

Is this a type of principle question presented in conditional reasoning form?

I understand the argument as follows:
1) the advicer's advantage be served--> Skepticism
2) the advicer's advantage is a coincidence -->
~ Skepticism

Based on the above, I consider (B) correct because the "personal experience " indicates the advantage gained by the sales person is the coincidence, which matches condition 2). Is that an effective way of solving this problem?

Also, is (D) incorrect because it is not Sara who benefits from the advice but her friend (i.e. the book's editor), which is not compatible with any condition mentioned in the stimulus?

Thanks for the help in advance.

[noah]

It seems that you've misread this. The issue is not whether there's a coincidence, but whether the interests coincide (meaning, come together or match).

So, the principle is:

Be skeptical if you get unsolicited advice from someone who would benefit from you following that advice. However, if your interests and that persons interest match on this issue, then you don't have to be skeptical (but who knows). And since that however makes some versions of the first sentence "void", best to think of it backwards (meaning starting with the negation of the possible "out" of the first conditional):

If there's no coinciding interests on the issue being discussed, be skeptical of unsolicited advice from someone who will benefit from you following their advice.

I don't think you need to go formal with this, but if you do:

~ coinciding interests --> be skeptical of unsolicited advice where the adviser benefits

(B) is correct because there are no coinciding interests, so he should be wary of this advice since the adviser will benefit if Ramon follows it.

(D) is incorrect because Sara and Ron have coinciding interests on this issue (they both are authors of the book), so we can't say that Sara should be skeptical.

If you want to test your skills a bit, try writing another answer choice that also follows the principle, but in a different manner.

For the record:

(A) is too strong - the suggestion is to be skeptical, not reject out of hand.
(C) brings in the issue of checking with others, which is out of scope. Also, the advice is not unsolicited.
(E) applies some sort of reversal of the principle. We only discuss when to be skeptical, not when to follow the advice.

[cyruswhittaker]

I'm a little confused still for why choice D is correct.

The principle states the necessary condition for not being skeptical is a good reason that their interests substantially coincide.

In this case, it's true that Sara and Ron both wrote a chapter of the book, but given the extra info about Sara's friend, it still seems very plausible that their interests don't substantially coincide.

It seems to me that D is wrong due to the description for which this principle applies: "advice from somone whose advantage would be served.."

In B, the salesperson would be in a position in which she would directly have an advantage, while in D, it's not Sara, but her friend would have an advantage.

Please help me clarify this if I'm missing something here.

[T.housman31]

I don't fully understand how B is correct. It is hardly unsolicited- If someone is shopping for a new refrigerator one should expect a salesperson to give them advice. D clearly is unsolicited as Sara "interrupts" Ron, but how is a salesperson approaching someone where they work considered unsolicited? Thats why I eliminated B, however I knew D was weak, but for less obvious reasons I thought.

[noah]

I'm a little confused still for why choice D is correct.

The principle states the necessary condition for not being skeptical is a good reason that their interests substantially coincide.

In this case, it's true that Sara and Ron both wrote a chapter of the book, but given the extra info about Sara's friend, it still seems very plausible that their interests don't substantially coincide.

It seems to me that D is wrong due to the description for which this principle applies: "advice from someone whose advantage would be served.."

In B, the salesperson would be in a position in which she would directly have an advantage, while in D, it's not Sara, but her friend would have an advantage.

Please help me clarify this if I'm missing something here.

This is an easy one - the answer is (B)! However, I think the caveat "there is good reason to think that their interests substantially coincide" is triggered here ("coincide" doesn't require completely aligning). Since the caveat is triggered, skepticism is not required.

I don't fully understand how B is correct. It is hardly unsolicited- If someone is shopping for a new refrigerator one should expect a salesperson to give them advice. D clearly is unsolicited as Sara "interrupts" Ron, but how is a salesperson approaching someone where they work considered unsolicited? Thats why I eliminated B, however I knew D was weak, but for less obvious reasons I thought.

I'd say you're adding the assumption that entering a store means soliciting advice. The other issue is that (D) has more concrete problems (see above).

Does that clear it up for everyone who solicited my advice?

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great response Noah.

I've just got another question about the formal logic to this question. As you state, it should be diagrammed: ~IC -> Skeptical; so the contrapositive is: ~Skeptical --> IC.

We also know: If someone profits --> Skeptical; so: ~Skeptical --> ~person does not profit

Based on this conditional logic, I don't know how we can eliminate (D). We know that Sara stands to profit (since she might build goodwill with her friend the book editor), so that seems to trigger the conditional that Ron should be skeptical (if someone profits --> skeptical).

But I don't see how the fact that they have "coinciding interests" has to do with the argument. The conditionals seems to suggest that we can only draw conclusions about ~IC, but that we cannot draw anything from IC, or coinciding interests (since this would be a mistaken negation of the premise). So I don't see how the fact that Ron and Sara have coinciding interests is enough for us to know that this answer is wrong when it seems like the sufficient trigger (profit) is there to bring about the necessary (skeptical), and IC is irrelevant to the argument. Am I missing something with this conditional diagram? Thanks!!

[sumukh09]

Thanks for the great response Noah.

I've just got another question about the formal logic to this question. As you state, it should be diagrammed: ~IC -> Skeptical; so the contrapositive is: ~Skeptical --> IC.

We also know: If someone profits --> Skeptical; so: ~Skeptical --> ~person does not profit

Based on this conditional logic, I don't know how we can eliminate (D). We know that Sara stands to profit (since she might build goodwill with her friend the book editor), so that seems to trigger the conditional that Ron should be skeptical (if someone profits --> skeptical).

But I don't see how the fact that they have "coinciding interests" has to do with the argument. The conditionals seems to suggest that we can only draw conclusions about ~IC, but that we cannot draw anything from IC, or coinciding interests (since this would be a mistaken negation of the premise). So I don't see how the fact that Ron and Sara have coinciding interests is enough for us to know that this answer is wrong when it seems like the sufficient trigger (profit) is there to bring about the necessary (skeptical), and IC is irrelevant to the argument. Am I missing something with this conditional diagram? Thanks!!

Let me see if I can help on this one and Noah can come in and give his thoughts as well. I have a different take on why answer choice D is wrong, although conditionally the issue is the same. Ron and Sara both have coinciding interests; Sara can help her friend out if the textbook is used, and Ron needs a textbook to teach his course. Further, I don't think the coinciding interest to use the textbook is because they both wrote a chapter in the book; using the textbook benefits both of them but in different ways. Regardless, the issue is that they have coinciding interests and we can't negate the sufficient condition (~IC) to bring about Skepticism.

We can do this in B, however, because Ramon is looking to get the best bang for his buck and the salesperson is just looking to get the most commission he can get; thus Ramon should be skeptical about the advice he gets about the least expensive model. Because Ron and Sara, in answer choice D, have a mutual interest in getting the textbook used, they have coinciding interests (help friend + need a textbook for course) and thus the recommendation that Ron be skeptical fails to parallel the stimulus' principle.

[noah]

Thanks for the great response Noah.

I've just got another question about the formal logic to this question. As you state, it should be diagrammed: ~IC -> Skeptical; so the contrapositive is: ~Skeptical --> IC.

We also know: If someone profits --> Skeptical; so: ~Skeptical --> ~person does not profit

Based on this conditional logic, I don't know how we can eliminate (D). We know that Sara stands to profit (since she might build goodwill with her friend the book editor), so that seems to trigger the conditional that Ron should be skeptical (if someone profits --> skeptical).

But I don't see how the fact that they have "coinciding interests" has to do with the argument. The conditionals seems to suggest that we can only draw conclusions about ~IC, but that we cannot draw anything from IC, or coinciding interests (since this would be a mistaken negation of the premise). So I don't see how the fact that Ron and Sara have coinciding interests is enough for us to know that this answer is wrong when it seems like the sufficient trigger (profit) is there to bring about the necessary (skeptical), and IC is irrelevant to the argument. Am I missing something with this conditional diagram? Thanks!!

I don't believe we know this: someone profits ---> skeptical

All of that is housed within an unless statement. That's only true if ~ IC.

Since they have coinciding interests, the fact that someone profits doesn't lead to skepticism.

As I mention above, I think the formal approach, if needed here, should be this:

~ coinciding interests --> be skeptical of unsolicited advice where the adviser benefits

[Mab6q]

I hard a hard time with E because I was trying to figure out if their interests coincided, but they don't. More importantly however, E concludes "follow recommendation." Nothing in our principle allowed us to take such an action. The only thing we could conclude was whether their interests coincided or whether we should be suspicious of advice.

[sue.liushuang]

Thanks for the great response Noah.

I've just got another question about the formal logic to this question. As you state, it should be diagrammed: ~IC -> Skeptical; so the contrapositive is: ~Skeptical --> IC.

We also know: If someone profits --> Skeptical; so: ~Skeptical --> ~person does not profit

Based on this conditional logic, I don't know how we can eliminate (D). We know that Sara stands to profit (since she might build goodwill with her friend the book editor), so that seems to trigger the conditional that Ron should be skeptical (if someone profits --> skeptical).

But I don't see how the fact that they have "coinciding interests" has to do with the argument. The conditionals seems to suggest that we can only draw conclusions about ~IC, but that we cannot draw anything from IC, or coinciding interests (since this would be a mistaken negation of the premise). So I don't see how the fact that Ron and Sara have coinciding interests is enough for us to know that this answer is wrong when it seems like the sufficient trigger (profit) is there to bring about the necessary (skeptical), and IC is irrelevant to the argument. Am I missing something with this conditional diagram? Thanks!!

Let me see if I can help on this one and Noah can come in and give his thoughts as well. I have a different take on why answer choice D is wrong, although conditionally the issue is the same. Ron and Sara both have coinciding interests; Sara can help her friend out if the textbook is used, and Ron needs a textbook to teach his course. Further, I don't think the coinciding interest to use the textbook is because they both wrote a chapter in the book; using the textbook benefits both of them but in different ways. Regardless, the issue is that they have coinciding interests and we can't negate the sufficient condition (~IC) to bring about Skepticism.

We can do this in B, however, because Ramon is looking to get the best bang for his buck and the salesperson is just looking to get the most commission he can get; thus Ramon should be skeptical about the advice he gets about the least expensive model. Because Ron and Sara, in answer choice D, have a mutual interest in getting the textbook used, they have coinciding interests (help friend + need a textbook for course) and thus the recommendation that Ron be skeptical fails to parallel the stimulus' principle.

I see the same way as redcobra21 sees the logic in the principle. Additionally, I think we get " If someone profits --> Skeptical" from the part prior to "unless" in the stimulus. I see how B is 100% justifiable, but I don't get why D should be dismissed.

[sue.liushuang]

I hard a hard time with E because I was trying to figure out if their interests coincided, but they don't. More importantly however, E concludes "follow recommendation." Nothing in our principle allowed us to take such an action. The only thing we could conclude was whether their interests coincided or whether we should be suspicious of advice.

I think you caught the problem in E. We don't have any clue to conclude if we should follow a recommendation or not. That's why E is incorrect.

[michellemyxu]

B - Why Ramon and the salesperson's interests do not coincide? Ramon wouldn't want to purchase the least expensive fridge, right? Because "on the basis of the salesperson's experience" she doesn't recommend it. Maybe it's not a good product. Or should I not make this assumption?