Q22 - Psychologists today recognize childhood

[Greatsk8erman]

Its questions like this that throw my confidence out a 2-story window and stomp on it. I chose C but lets see why that is incorrect. The entire argument reaches the conclusion that surely research on the elderly has become essential. Well the principle in the answer should justify this reasoning, or strengthen it, according to the question. Could someone please explain how D does this and C doesn't?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post, and sorry for the delayed response!

Listen: on these principle support questions, our job is always the same. We need to select a principle that helps get us from the premise to the conclusion. Here, the premise is that old age is distinct from the rest of adulthood, as demonstrated by the organization of social and economic life. The conclusion is that research into old age is therefore indispensable.

Okay. We know we're looking for a principle that basically says, if the organization of society suggests that an age is distinct from the rest of adulthood, then researching it is indispensable.

(D) gets the job done because it starts with the right premise -- when society's economic life leads to two times of life being treated as fundamentally different -- and gets us pretty close to the conclusion: if each time of life can be understood only in terms of its own psychology, then research into old-age psychology would indeed seem indispensable.

I'm not madly in love with that answer, because it's still making the small assumption that we need to understand old age, but it's pretty solid. To be sure, let's rule out the wrong answers.

On this question type, the wrong answers will give us some combination of
- starting with the wrong premise, and/or
- getting us to the wrong conclusion

(A) gets us to the conclusion that traditional attitudes should be changed. That doesn't help us conclude anything about research.

(B) starts with the wrong premise and gets us to a totally wrong conclusion. So it's completely out of scope.

(C) is actually out of scope across the board as well. What "particular problem" does the argument suggest practitioners approach in the same way? Likewise, when does the argument generalize that all similar problems should be approached in that way?

Now, I suppose you were thinking that "childhood" and "old age" are the problems in question. First, there is no indication that the argument considers these to be "problems." They're just categories. Secondly, the course of action proposed in the conclusion -- that we need to conduct research into old age psychology -- is not something that comes up with regards to childhood. So even if we granted that the two things were "problems," this answer wouldn't help us conclude that research is essential.

(E) gets us to a conclusion about comparing groups as a whole vs. comparing individuals within those groups, which is totally out of scope.

Does that answer your question?

[WaltGrace1983]

Here is how I approached the question and I will continue on to say what I did wrong and what I did right.

So the argument is saying that psychologists are beginning to recognize that children are much more than mini adults . However, it does go on to say that psychologists, while believing their conclusions about the difference between children and adults, do not regard those who are 70-90 any different than those who are 35 or so. "What is the deal?!" says the author.

Old age is fundamentally different from young adulthood, just as middle age is fundamentally different from childhood
→
Serious research into the "unique psychology" of old age is necessary

What is going on here? The argument is saying that, because there is a difference, we need to research a unique psychology. How do we get that?

(A) Out of scope. Why? Because "current psychological practice" could only refer to two things: (1) psychologists believing that children are fundamentally different from all adults; (2) psychologists believing that older-adults are NOT different from younger-adults. The problem with (A)? Current psychological practice, as it refers to (2), does NOT even CONFLICT with traditional attitudes! The traditional attitudes and the current psychological practice only support each other!

(B) Sometimes I think to myself, "what?" when I read answer choices like this. What? Deviant members? I just don't even...

Hate to play the "scope" card on this one but there is no other way to go!

(C) Tough one! I struggled with this one during review. We do know that most practitioners - psychologists - do approach a "particular problem" in the same way (we are assuming here that all this stuff is a "problem"). Okay now (C) concludes that "uniformity is good evidence that all similar problems should be approached in that way." Now I know that one is probably thinking, "oh okay! the child-adult problem is approached in way X and thus the adult-older adult problem should be approached in way X." Whoaaa! Back up! Yes that is indeed what (C) is saying but how does this support the conclusion that research is necessary? It doesn't really. It is a tempting answer, sure, and it may be one that I skip over and check out the others. However, when it comes down to it, it just doesn't justify the conclusion.

Now onto the ones I thought were the toughest. I am going to fist break (E) down line by line with my thought process:

Whenever psychologists agree that a single psychology is inadequate for two distinct age groups
This is kind of what they did. They said that children should not be undermined as simply small adults

They should be prepared to show that there are greater differences between two age groups than there are between individuals in that age group
The "two age groups" refers to children and adults. While the "individuals in that age group" refers to adults and older-adults, the age group that psychologists have lumped adults and older-adults together in.

Now onto the problems with my original reasoning:
-There is nothing in the argument suggesting that there needs to be a greater difference between (adults and older-adults) and (children and adults). Couldn't there be the same difference? Absolutely.
-"They should be prepared to show" does not necessarily mean that "research is indispensable." That is the conclusion of the argument! That is the most important part! Thus, this answer choice is close, but no cigar.

(D) I originally got rid of this one. I am going to analyze it and figure out what I did wrong. (D) says the following...

Society's economic life asserts that two distinct times of life are treated as being fundamentally different
→
each time of life can be understood only in terms of its own distinct psychology.

We know that (D) cannot be right unless the sufficient conditions of the answer choice is established by the argument. So the question is, "is the sufficient condition established?" Yes. The argument says that "economic life" attests to the fact that "old age is fundamentally different from young adulthood." So we got the sufficient condition, great!

Now is the necessary condition - the conclusion - the same here as in the argument? Yes. Why? Because the argument talks about how this "unique psychology" is necessary. In other words: understood → unique psychology. This is great!

Hope my initially flawed logic helps someone!

[Mab6q]

Hey Walt, or anyone else on the boards for that matter?

Can you go into greater detail about the sufficient assumption being established by the argument for the answer choice to be correct? Is this a general rule that we can follow for Sufficient Assumption/Principle Support questions?


Thanks as always.

[maryadkins]

I think the key here is to consider the wording of the question. You're looking for the "strongest backing." That SOUNDS like a sufficient assumption-like question. So yes, you want to fill the gap as much as humanly possible.

The way the question is worded matters. Principle Support questions differ in degree—some ask for you to find a principle that is illustrated, which would mean don't go for broke, just find a match. Others, like this one, ask clearly for the best possible support, in which case, that's what you look for—the absolute strongest answer.

Take the precise wording of the Principle question very seriously I'd say is the takeaway.