Q20 - Professor: Each government should

[joyce.hau]

I'd chosen A for this one originally because it provided the "well-being" clause that was missing from the conclusion. I get why it is wrong now--"only" is too strong? I'm just puzzled as to why it's D. "At least some children would benefit from high-quality day care" doesn't really spell out the "well-being" clause. Are we supposed to infer that from the word "benefit"?

[noah]

Yes, jumping from "improving well-being" to "benefit" is acceptable.

I know a lot of people struggle with this question. The conclusion of it is that the government should ensure that day care is available to everyone (by financing it - and high-quality day care at that!). Why? Because the government, gosh darnit, should do something to help all the kids.

If you don't see the gap, consider this analogous argument:

People should be nice to their pets --> People should feed pets ice cream.

Is ice cream nice for pets?

Governments should be nice to kids --> Governments should provide them good day care.

The gap, if you don't see it, is that we don't know that day care actually helps kids! Maybe it causes them to behave badly and/or get ear infections. (D) is a necessary assumption -- we need at least some kids to benefit. If we negate it and say that no kids benefit from day care, the argument does not make sense.

(A) is tempting, as it links caring for kids and daycare, but off the bat, it's suspicious because it seems to simply re-state the core of the argument. But, sometimes correct answers do that, so let's look at the details.

The argument says that government should "do all it can to improve the well-being" of kids, but (A) mentions governments that "take an interest." We're not interested in what those governments should or should not do.

Furthermore, if we negate (A) and state that "It's not only governments that subsidize high quality day care that take an interest in kid's well-being" it still might be true that governments that should do something for kids still have an obligation to subsidize health care.

[Thanks to a student for correcting my earlier explanation of (A).]

(B) is out of scope -- money is no object when the federal government is involved!

(C) isn't necessary. What if high quality health care should be provided to everyone? Does that disturb the argument? Nope -- that's what's being offered!

(E) is out of scope -- who cares if the private sector can do it faster! Only the government can make it so widely available.

Tell me if you have any other questions about that.

[zainrizvi]

I got this answer right and I see the error in (A). But I was wondering that if the answer choice read, "Only governments that subsidize high-quality daycare improves the well-being of all the children in the society", would that be right?

A part of me thinks that it would be wrong as the language is too strong. But at the same time, "it's not only governments that subsidize high-quality day improve well-being of all children in society" sort of destroys the argument. That is, unless there is another reason to improve well-being through daycare. So I guess it isn't a necessary assumption...But if there is another reason, doesn't that add a new line of reasoning? This assumption pretty much ends up destroying this particular method of reasoning.

I'm a bit confused.

[noah]

I was wondering that if the answer choice read, "Only governments that subsidize high-quality daycare improves the well-being of all the children in the society", would that be right?

Is it a problem if there are some governments that don't subsidize daycare that still somehow manage to improve the well-being of all the kids?

No, the argument states that governments should do all that they can do.

[zainrizvi]

I was wondering that if the answer choice read, "Only governments that subsidize high-quality daycare improves the well-being of all the children in the society", would that be right?

Is it a problem if there are some governments that don't subsidize daycare that still somehow manage to improve the well-being of all the kids?

No, the argument states that governments should do all that they can do.

This would, however, make it sufficient I believe, right?

Improves well-being of children -> governments that subsidize high quality daycare

government chooses not to subsidize healthcare -> does not improve well being

Correct?

[noah]

I see what you mean, but the stimulus is talking about doing all that a government can, so you'd have to put that in there somewhere. Something like "only governments that subsidize high-quality daycare are doing all that they can to improve the..."

It's dangerous stuff playing "what if" with such a question!

Nice work.

[griffin.811]

Could the issue (A) be that it is sufficient, but not necessary?

Meaning that if A were true then our conclusion would hold, but we don't NEED it to hold for our conclusion to hold?

This is the first thing that struck me as a red flag when reviewing

[noah]

Could the issue (A) be that it is sufficient, but not necessary?

Meaning that if A were true then our conclusion would hold, but we don't NEED it to hold for our conclusion to hold?

This is the first thing that struck me as a red flag when reviewing

If it's true that only the high quality day care subsidizing governments are the only ones that care about their kids, do we know that subsidizing such day care will actually help kids? (All those governments could be misguided in how they spend their money, but it turns out that all the kind-hearted governments have fallen for this "high quality day care scam"). In short, we still might not get to our conclusion.

Tell me if that's not clear.

[griffin.811]

Could the issue (A) be that it is sufficient, but not necessary?

Meaning that if A were true then our conclusion would hold, but we don't NEED it to hold for our conclusion to hold?

This is the first thing that struck me as a red flag when reviewing

If it's true that only the high quality day care subsidizing governments are the only ones that care about their kids, do we know that subsidizing such day care will actually help kids? (All those governments could be misguided in how they spend their money, but it turns out that all the kind-hearted governments have fallen for this "high quality day care scam"). In short, we still might not get to our conclusion.

Tell me if that's not clear.

In other words, the language "taking an interest" in (A) is not synonymous with "actually improving" in the stem.

Took me back to one of those first chapters in the LR guide...

Makes sense, thanks!

[minhtientm249]

Hello,

Could you please explain me how come "at least some children will benefit" is assumed from "do all they can"? I eliminated this answer choice because the government doing all they can doesn't mean at least some children will benefit.

Thank you!

[noah]

Hello,

Could you please explain me how come "at least some children will benefit" is assumed from "do all they can"? I eliminated this answer choice because the government doing all they can doesn't mean at least some children will benefit.

Thank you!

It's not tying into just "do all they can" -- it's "do all they can to improve the well-being of all the children..."

If no kids are benefiting, then how is the effort improving the well-being of any kids.

Got it?

[doug.feng]

Premise:
- Day care will become available to families of ALL INCOME LEVELS if and only if it is subsidized.
- Governments should do all that it can to improve the well-being of all the children within the society that it governs.

Conclusion:
Governments should help finance high-quality daycare.

(A): Language is way too strong for a necessary and doesn't necessarily have to be true for the argument to work.
(B): Out of Scope. Benefits for adults is irrelevant to the argument core.
(C): Out of Scope. (Maybe opposite). We already know that the subsidization would make the daycare available to ALL income levels.
(E): Out of Scope. Doesn't matter if the government is better than private.

(D): Correct Answer. It's not strong enough to be sufficient, but IS necessary for the argument to hold.

[tommywallach]

Another great explanation, D!

-t

[haeeunjee]

Thank you all for the helpful posts above! For some reason, I am still stuck on A. I understand completely now why D was the right answer, since if no children benefited, then the logical link between "well-being"/beneficial to children and day care would be broken.

However, the whole negation technique doesn't seem to be clicking in my head. Negation of A would be: "It's not only governments that give day care that are interested in children's well-being" or as another person put it: "Some governments that don't give day care are [still] interested in well-being." However, if we add this to the argument, it does seem like it weakens it?

My breakdown (bracketed words are words added by me) --
P#1: All gov'ts should do all they can to improve well-being of [all] children.
P#2: Day care will be available to all if/only if subsidized.
Conc: [All] Gov'ts should help finance high-quality day care.

If we add to the argument that "Some gov'ts that don't give day care are interested in well-being" (or flipped but equal in meaning: "Some gov'ts that are interested in well-being don't give day care"), then doesn't this weaken the conclusion that "[all] gov'ts should finance day care"? If it is now possible that a government can still care for well-being without funding day care, governments do not necessarily need to help finance day care! The link between well-being and day care seems broken now. So if the negation hurts the argument, isn't it a necessary assumption? I know I am definitely missing or skipping something here.

If anyone can help me out, that'd be much appreciated. Concrete examples/applications of why A is wrong are very welcome.

[weid247]

Yes, jumping from "improving well-being" to "benefit" is acceptable.

I know a lot of people struggle with this question. The conclusion of it is that the government should ensure that day care is available to everyone (by financing it - and high-quality day care at that!). Why? Because the government, gosh darnit, should do something to help all the kids.

If you don't see the gap, consider this analogous argument:

People should be nice to their pets --> People should feed pets ice cream.

Is ice cream nice for pets?

Governments should be nice to kids --> Governments should provide them good day care.

The gap, if you don't see it, is that we don't know that day care actually helps kids! Maybe it causes them to behave badly and/or get ear infections. (D) is a necessary assumption -- we need at least some kids to benefit. If we negate it and say that no kids benefit from day care, the argument does not make sense.

(A) is tempting, as it links caring for kids and daycare, but off the bat, it's suspicious because it seems to simply re-state the core of the argument. But, sometimes correct answers do that, so let's look at the details.

The argument says that government should "do all it can to improve the well-being" of kids, but (A) mentions governments that "take an interest." We're not interested in what those governments should or should not do.

Furthermore, if we negate (A) and state that "It's not only governments that subsidize high quality day care that take an interest in kid's well-being" it still might be true that governments that should do something for kids still have an obligation to subsidize health care.

[Thanks to a student for correcting my earlier explanation of (A).]

(B) is out of scope -- money is no object when the federal government is involved!

(C) isn't necessary. What if high quality health care should be provided to everyone? Does that disturb the argument? Nope -- that's what's being offered!

(E) is out of scope -- who cares if the private sector can do it faster! Only the government can make it so widely available.

Tell me if you have any other questions about that.

I have a better explanation of why A is wrong.

Actually A do the reverse.

Promise: we should X
Conclusion: we should Y

Why if we should X, then we should Y? Because X is the goal, we can by doing Y to get at least part of the X. This is the assumption.

The choice A say if we want to do well for all children, we must finance day care. Actually it is the reverse. The right answer is if we finance day care, then we at least partly help do well for children. It’s actually what D said.

[LawrenceR550]

Yes, jumping from "improving well-being" to "benefit" is acceptable.

I know a lot of people struggle with this question. The conclusion of it is that the government should ensure that day care is available to everyone (by financing it - and high-quality day care at that!). Why? Because the government, gosh darnit, should do something to help all the kids.

If you don't see the gap, consider this analogous argument:

People should be nice to their pets --> People should feed pets ice cream.

Is ice cream nice for pets?

Governments should be nice to kids --> Governments should provide them good day care.

The gap, if you don't see it, is that we don't know that day care actually helps kids! Maybe it causes them to behave badly and/or get ear infections. (D) is a necessary assumption -- we need at least some kids to benefit. If we negate it and say that no kids benefit from day care, the argument does not make sense.

(A) is tempting, as it links caring for kids and daycare, but off the bat, it's suspicious because it seems to simply re-state the core of the argument. But, sometimes correct answers do that, so let's look at the details.

The argument says that government should "do all it can to improve the well-being" of kids, but (A) mentions governments that "take an interest." We're not interested in what those governments should or should not do.

Furthermore, if we negate (A) and state that "It's not only governments that subsidize high quality day care that take an interest in kid's well-being" it still might be true that governments that should do something for kids still have an obligation to subsidize health care.

[Thanks to a student for correcting my earlier explanation of (A).]

(B) is out of scope -- money is no object when the federal government is involved!

(C) isn't necessary. What if high quality health care should be provided to everyone? Does that disturb the argument? Nope -- that's what's being offered!

(E) is out of scope -- who cares if the private sector can do it faster! Only the government can make it so widely available.

Tell me if you have any other questions about that.

Thanks for the explanation for why E is right. Having understood why A was wrong, I ended up eliminating all of them! Went with B because it starts talking about the families, and adults are necessary for children, and basically you shouldn't implement a project/plan anyhow if it's too expensive to not have something else that's important.
sigh