Q2 - A number of Grandville's

[wj097]

Hi, I was clear on the flaw, generalizing from one case to all, but had hardtime choosing between A and E.

A: it read as if a single case could be sufficient to generalize to all
E: sceptical about the term "exceptional case"...we know it doesn't describe all but, can we say exceptional...

Thx

[ohthatpatrick]

I see where you're going with that, but what kind of argument would (A) describe? Sometimes I try to give myself a simple argument so that I can put some concrete meat on these abstract answers' bones.

I need a result.

Let's say cheating on a test resulted in my feeling guilty.

So the 'result' is guilt. This answer choice is saying that the author thought that this result, 'guilt', was sufficient for bringing about that result.

Say what?

'Guilt' was sufficient for bringing about 'guilt'?

That's what (A) is saying.

The argument would have to sound something like this:
Patrick cheated on a test and that's why now he feels guilty. Clearly, feeling guilty ensures that one feels guilty.

Sometimes LSAT just likes to load up an answer choice with fancy sounding words, even if the idea doesn't make any sense (i.e. it would never be an actual flaw they would write). I think (A) falls into this category.

You were trying to match it up with the whole objection of "hey, just cuz SOME rich people were criminals doesn't mean we can indict ALL rich people!"

I think the second half of (A) feels kinda matchable. The author seems to think that "being wealthy" is sufficient to prove to us that "your character/integrity is sketchy".

But can we match up the first half of (A) with the first sentence? When they tell me that a number of wealthy citizens have been criminals, are they describing anything we could call a 'result'?

I don't think so. There's no causal language in the first sentence, so there's no way to label 'wealthy' or 'criminal' a result.

Here's a slightly different version of (A) that would be more appropriate
(A) confuses a quality that sometimes accompanies a certain trait with a quality that guarantees a certain trait

=== other answers ===

(B) there is no temporal relationship in the argument. This flaw is saying "the author assumes that because A came before B, A caused B."

(C) again, I don't think there's any way to match up 'result' with anything being discussed here, let alone 'intent'.

(D) The first sentence is objective, not subjective. Thus, it's inaccurate to say that the author judged ONLY by subjective standards.

(E) your hesitation about "can we really justify that these were EXCEPTIONAL cases?" is great. But, the answer choice doesn't say they WERE exceptional cases, only that they COULD BE exceptional cases. That soft wording makes (E) very safe.

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

Let's say cheating on a test resulted in my feeling guilty.

So the 'result' is guilt. This answer choice is saying that the author thought that this result, 'guilt', was sufficient for bringing about that result.

Say what?

'Guilt' was sufficient for bringing about 'guilt'?

That's what (A) is saying.

The argument would have to sound something like this:
Patrick cheated on a test and that's why now he feels guilty. Clearly, feeling guilty ensures that one feels guilty.

Sometimes LSAT just likes to load up an answer choice with fancy sounding words, even if the idea doesn't make any sense (i.e. it would never be an actual flaw they would write). I think (A) falls into this category.

I am a little confused by this. I don't see how (A) is analogous to the situation you just described. I would see it like this:

Cheating on the test --> guilt

"Guilt" is the result. "Cheating on the test" is the sufficient." Thus, isn't (A) trying to say that the argument confuses "guilt" (the result) with "cheating on the test" (something sufficient). In other words, I guess the author says that "cheating on the test" = guilt.

So let's say I said the following: "I have guilt." The author is confusing this "guilt" with "cheating on the test." Thus the author takes these two terms as synonymous. "I have guilt" is the exact same thing as "I have cheated on the test."

Is the correct way of thinking?

Wouldn't (A) be wrong, for one reason, because (A) is talking about a causal relationship and there is nothing causal about this argument? All this argument is saying is that "some people who are wealthy are criminals" and thus "no wealthy person should be appointed." It may be implying that being wealthy --> not having good ethics but the argument itself is not that causal. What do you guys and girls think?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I agree with your example.

My analogy was making use of only one premise, but I like yours more, in which we get the causal relationship AND a statement of fact about the necessary side, getting us to conclude the sufficient side.

In a sense, this answer choice is really just a Nec/Suff flaw in weird language. A "result" can usually be thought of as a consequence of a conditional statement, so if the answer choice is saying "the author confused a consequence with a trigger" then it is just saying Ye Olde Nec/Suff flaw (which means that the author botched conditional logic).

And I also agree that (A) is off-kilter simply due to employing causal language at all.

In my original post I wrote:
"I think the second half of (A) feels kinda matchable. The author seems to think that "being wealthy" is sufficient to prove to us that "your character/integrity is sketchy".

But can we match up the first half of (A) with the first sentence? When they tell me that a number of wealthy citizens have been criminals, are they describing anything we could call a 'result'?

I don't think so. There's no causal language in the first sentence, so there's no way to label 'wealthy' or 'criminal' a result."

[seychelles1718]

Although there is no explicit causal language in the stimulus, isn't the author assuming the causal relationship between being wealthy and being unethical? I thought the author claims wealthy people should not be appointed to the committee because he believes " being wealthy --> being unethical".
I thought the flaw was mistaking correlation-causation relationships... can anyone please leave feedbacks on my thoughts? Thanks!!

[ohthatpatrick]

The easiest way to get rid of (B) is "temporal relationship". That is NOT what correlation to causality means.

Temporal relationship means "before/after"
"Joe sneezed. Then a bus drove by. Thus, Joe's sneezes cause buses to drive by."

You're correct that the author assumes a connection between wealthy and unethical, but there's no reason we have to say that it's a causal connection, that being wealthy CAUSES someone to be unethical.

I could say "a number of apples in the Whole Foods produce section were rotten. Since we only want to use fresh apples for the pie we're making, no apple from Whole Foods should go in that pie."

Is the author assuming that "being in Whole Foods CAUSED the apples to be rotten?"

Maybe, but he could just as easily assume that something else caused the apples to be rotten. Even if something else caused the rottenness, the author's crazy conclusion still makes "sense" ... he's worried that the property of "rottenness" accompanies all instances of "Whole Foods apples", but that doesn't need to involve the idea that Whole Foods caused the rottenness.

[HughM388]

Maybe it's just me, but the author's reasoning seems pretty sound to me. If you want to guarantee that greedy ex-cons are kept off the GPC, then keeping all wealthy people off the GPC would be effective, as far as it goes.

It may be an incomplete measure—there could be poorer ex-cons among residents who will also need to be kept off the committee, presumably by the establishment of additional exclusionary policies—but keeping wealthy people off the committee is definitely a great place to start.

The proposal's incompleteness—by creating a condition necessary and not sufficient for keeping crims off the committee—is its only vulnerability, as far as I'm concerned.

[HaoranL497]

hi everyone
thx for the replies there, but I still have a problem as for how to identity a causal relationship after reading Patrick's explanation...
What's more, I can't really tell the differences between causal relationship and conditional reasoning.
Can someone help me with those?