Q20 - In some ill-considered popularizations

[hychu3]

Hello,

This is my first post.

I had some trouble solving this problem, so it would be nice if someone can confirm if my reasoning is right.

(A) is incorrect because it does not specify what each agent (humans and lion) is capable of; it only talks about what they don't do.

(B) is incorrect because it does not specify what aliens are capable of. It also talks about what they do instead of what they don't do.

(C) is the correct answer. The first agent is capable of something, but doesn't do what that capability allows the agent to do, and likewise for the second agent.

(D) is incorrect because "some" significantly limits the scope.

(E) is incorrect because saying that "not all" will drive allows the possibility that some do drive the cars.

[tommywallach]

Hey Hyc,

Welcome to the forum, and apologies for not answering sooner. I think your logic is good, but also that you're overthinking it a bit.

This argument is about two populations that might have a useful skill and choose not to use it (which is said to be patently ridiculous).

(A) Neither actor here has a skill. A skill would be not NEEDING to sleep but choosing to do it anyway.

(B) Again, not skills involved.

(C) Correct. Telekinesis and walking are both skills.

(D) This is close, but it's not about a skill so much as an enjoyable pastime that two populations are choosing not to engage in.

(E) The first example here is okay (having cars but choosing not to drive), but the second example is total gibberish. It's about inventing something before you need it, not having a skill and choosing not to use it.

Hope that helps, and good work!

-t

[mornincounselor]

The question begins by speaking about something which applies to all of a species and then continues by making a claim about some members of another species. All --> Some


(A) Begins by making a claim about some members of a species then moves onto some species of another animal. Some ---> Some

(B) All --> All

(C) All --> Some

(D) Some --> All

(E) Some --> ?

Is this a correct means of looking at this question?

[ohthatpatrick]

That's a really interesting take on this problem, but I think you might have gotten lucky there.

Technically, the original argument doesn't go from ALL to SOME in my interpretation.

Saying "higher apes have the capacity of language" does sound like ALL of them have it (although it's borderline to me)

If I say "humans have the capacity to learn piano", does that mean that EVERY human has the capacity to learn piano? For example, does a human who was born without arms have the capacity to learn piano? Does a human who was born with debilitating neurological problems have the capacity?

I would say they do NOT have the capacity, but it's still fair to say "humans have the capacity to learn piano".

I think you can speak about a species having a capacity for something without really committing yourself to saying that every single actual member of the species has that capacity.

I also don't interpret the second part of the original argument to be a SOME statement.

When it says "some animal has wings but hasn't used them to fly", it's being unspecific, but I still interpreted it as making a SPECIES-related generalization.

I didn't think the author was saying "some animal", as in Harry the Pig has wings. I thought the author was saying "some animal" as in some species of animal, "Pigs have wings, but don't use them to fly".

Technically, neither of us is correct because that wording is ambiguous and could potentially mean either interpretation. But that's why I think describing the argument as an All --> Some switch is not a reliable way of thinking about this one.

It's also just a little too simple in detail. I've never seen a Match the Reasoning argument be as simple as
Prem: All
Conc: Some

We would always need more detail than that, even if it's something as simple as
Prem: All A's are B's.
Conc: Thus, Some B's are A's.

We could dig into your interpretation of the answer choices as well, but I think we're going to encounter the same ambiguity about whether we're speaking in terms of ALL or SOME.

You interpreted in (A) "a species of lion doesn't eat meat" as a SOME statement. I would interpret that as an ALL statement.

They're both right, depending on your perspective.

You could say SOME species of lion doesn't eat meat.

Or you could say ALL lions of this species don't eat meat.

So let's just say
- nice attention to detail in terms of quantifying modifiers
- congratulations on it working for you on this problem (but I think it's just a happy coincidence)
- strive for a more detail rich model of an original argument when you're doing Match the Reasoning because a model as simple as "All --> Some" would never be alone what they intended to test.

Thanks for the post.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Can someone provide an adequate explanation for why C is better than D?

[haeeunjee]

Can someone provide an adequate explanation for why C is better than D?

The first thing that pops out to me is that D changes from "some people" to "a society." While the stimulus used one species to illustrate something about another species. "Some people" isn't equal to "a society." Sure, there can be some farmers who farm tobacco but never smoke it.

[AliceInWonderland]

There is a striking parallel between the stimulus and C (which does not exist between the stimulus and any other answer choice):

Stimulus:
higher apes have the capacity for language
but have never put it to use
some animal has wings adequate for flight
but has never thought to fly

C:
humans have telekinetic powers
but have never exercised them
some insect has legs (adequate for walking)
but never uses them to walk