Q21 - Editorial: It is a travesty

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: This criticism is misplaced (i.e. it's silly to criticize the govt for solving space travel before solving social problems).
Evidence: Rocket technology is simpler than the human psyche, and we need to know the human psyche to solve social problems.

Answer Anticipation:
Since it appears after one of the big four premise words (FABS = For, After All, Because Since), we know it's supporting the previous idea. So it's a premise. The only extra question you might ask yourself, knowing this question type, is "Is it also a subsidiary conclusion?" It is not, since there is no reason offered for WHY rocket technology is simpler than the human psyche. So we're looking for "a premise that supports the idea that the criticism is misplaced".

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) A premise, not an objection.

(B) A premise, not a fact that as misled critics.

(C) A premise, not the conclusion.

(D) A premise, not a false assumption.

(E) Yes! It is used to reach the author's conclusion = premise. The author's conclusion = arging against a viewpoint ("this criticism is misplaced"). And the author's premise attacks an implicit assumption of the social critics. Attacking an assumption = undermining the reasoning behind.

Takeaway/Pattern: From the keyword placement of "however" and "for", we could identify the conclusion and premise even if this argument were otherwise in a foreign language. So it's fairly straightforward to know they're asking us about a claim that was a Premise. Naturally, the answer choices avoid using that word. They don't even use a common synonym like "support / evidence / illustration". Instead, since the conclusion is arguing against a point of view, "supporting the conclusion" is the same as "undermining the point of view the conclusion argues against".

#officialexplanation

[mitchliao]

Do you find it more efficient to first figure out what role the highlighted sentence plays in the argument before you go to the answer choice?

Then quickly go through the answer choices to search for it?

Or... go through the answer choices and eliminate.

Cause in this case, I was thinking, "it's a premise that supports the conclusion."

But... the right answer was "it is used by the argument to attempt to undermine the reasoning behind a viewpoint."

Sure, it does that too, but wasn't really close to my prephrase.

And I still had to spend a good chunk of time figuring out ridiculous wording like "it is claimed to be a false assumption on which the reasoning that the argument seeks to undermine rests."

Just looking for a faster way through these problems which are usually "gimmes"

[cyruswhittaker]

I think that in terms of role questions, this is a bit more difficult than the easy ones.

In response to your question, I actually believe that your prehrase was spot on, and, in fact, DID mirror choice (E).

Be flexible with your prephrase; let it represent the gist of the role, but know that the actual answer, particularly on these later questions in the section, might present the same idea in a rather convoluted but nevertheless accurate manner.

In this case, your prephrase was essentially that it provided evidence for the author's conclusion. But remember, the author's conclusion was a rebuttal of the criticism by attacking its assumption, and thus we could think of the phrase as "evidence used to support the conclusion" and then rephrase the conclusion in terms of the rebuttal: "evidence used to undermine the reasoning behind a viewpoint."

I think it's most beneficial to prephrase quickly, remain flexible with how the prephrase will be presented (particularly on questions 15+), and then quickly eliminate those answers that are wrong.

[hyewonkim89]

I'm still really confused on this question.

I eliminated (E) immediately because the editorial didn't seem to undermine the statement.

Will someone help me understand the wording of (E) and why (E) is the answer over the other answer choices?

Thanks in advance!

Hye-Won

[tommywallach]

Hey Hye,

Happy to help. Let's start by looking at the core.

Conclusion: The fact that we can launch rockets but not solve social problems is NOT a travesty of justice.

Premise: Launching rockets is actually much simpler than solving social problems.

The thing we're interested in is the "premise." Remember, premises always support the conclusion.

(A) The premise agrees with the conclusion, so this isn't right.

(B) This fact has not misled anyone. The author is implying that the social critics don't know or recognize this, not that it has somehow fooled them.

(C) This is the premise, not the conclusion.

(D) Again, not a false assumption; it's the premise.

(E) CORRECT. Notice how it says "It is used by the argument..." That means it's helping the argument. It is used to undermine the reasoning behind the viewpoint expressed by the first sentence of the passage. (In other words, in order to see this as a travesty of justice, you have to believe that launching rockets and solving social problems are roughly equivalent problems.)

Hope that helps!

-t

[andrewgong01]

I agree that the quoted sentence is a premise that the author uses. However, I am still unsure about "B". This is also a fact that has misled critics because critics are charging that it is a "travesty of justice" for us to focus on rocket science over social problems. Then, this quoted line is giving us a fact that shows social critics are wrong. Why? In reality, social critics do not realize that rocket science is actually easier but the fact that it is easier has misled critics into giving a false accusation that it is a travesty of justice.

My other question is that isn't fact and premise the same thing? A premise is something we have to accept in a stimulus where there is no support for it. If there is support it could be an intermediate conclusion or the main conclusion. A fact seems to also be what a premise is where it is just giving us something that is true and we accept.

In other words, the quoted sentence seems to directly attack the assumption the social critics have on which is easier, which I think is what "D" is trying to get at but "D" slightly changes the way it describes what is the 'false assumption' that makes 'D" wrong. However, "E" seems to attack this same idea since the quoted sentence points out the assumption that critics made is wrong and the assumption is the "reasoning behind the viewpoint"

I do see how "E" is correct but I am not clear with how "B" is wrong

[Allyson C992]

Why is B not correct?

Also, I eliminated E because it says "to attempt to undermine the reasoning behind a viewpoint" and in the stimulus it says it is an assumption which I figured is different than reasoning. Can you please explain?

Thank you.

[Misti Duvall]

Why is B not correct?

Also, I eliminated E because it says "to attempt to undermine the reasoning behind a viewpoint" and in the stimulus it says it is an assumption which I figured is different than reasoning. Can you please explain?

Thank you.

Sure! Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the statement at issue is not a fact that has misled anyone. See Patrick's official explanation above.

Assumption is not necessarily different than reasoning. An assumption is often the unstated reasoning behind an argument. (For ex: Chocolate chip cookies contain lots of chocolate, therefore I eat them. Why I am eating them (i.e., what is my reasoning for eating them)? Presumably I like chocolate.)

Answer choice (E) is correct, as noted above, because the statement is offered as a counter to the assumption behind the idea the argument is attacking (that a space launch involves greater difficulties than ending long-standing social problems).

Hope this helps.