Q22 - The return of organic wastes

[jewels0602]

I had trouble with this question so I am writing out an explanation for self-help...

This is a match the flaw question and the first thing is to identify the flaw in the stim itself, which is mistaken reversal (necessary taken to be sufficient), or in conditional terms:

Premise: OWGS --> NT & ~ET
Premise: In small scale, OW --> NT & ~ET
Conclusion: In small scale, because NT & ~ET --> OWGS

(OW = organic waste; OWGS = organic waste is good solution; NT = not toxic; ET = too much energy for transportation)

So we should go in looking for a mistaken reversal of a general rule/principle applied to a specific case.

A - This one starts with thriving and ends with health; also, in the original flaw, it seemed like there was a hint of speculation, whereas in this AC there is a an attempt to explain why the a certain outcome is the way it is. I'm not a big fan of it, but I keep it on the first go.
B - This doesn't match the flaw; no mistaken reversal; eliminate
C - This one is short and simple, but it does match the flaw in our original argument. It has three necessary conditions instead of two, which makes me a bit uneasy but it's good nonetheless, so, keep it.
D - This one is very tricky and it tripped me up (taking a good chunk of my time) during timed practice. Essentially, this is a biconditional, so necessary condition is sufficient, and vice versa, so this is a valid argument. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE VERIFY IF THIS IS THE CASE? I MIGHT BE WRONG.
E - This doesn't match the flaw, it seems like a valid argument, so eliminate.

Between C and A, C is the better choice because it seems to be speculating as opposed to explaining an already occurring phenomenon.


I had a tough time with this question so any help on my reasoning would be very helpful; even though I got this question right, I don't feel comfortable with it.

[ohthatpatrick]

You did a GREAT job explaining that, especially considering you feel a little iffy about it.

There are a just a couple screws we should tighten so that the whole thing can go more quickly and with more certainty.

You perfectly surmised the original flaw:
P1: A --> B and C
P2: X is B and C
------------------
Conc: X is A

Since we're looking for a mistaken reversal, the thing I would be scanning for in each answer is a conditional statement that resembles
A --> B and C (doesn't really matter how many things are on the right side; all we care about is duplicating the mistaken reversal)

Once I find the conditional, I can quickly check the conclusion to make sure it's concluding "A".

(A) Abundance of 3 things --> thrive

I'll glance to see if the conclusion is saying "Therefore, abundance of 3 things". It's not. Eliminate. (This argument is actually pretty sound)

(B) Equal access --> optimized resources.

See if the conclusion says "Therefore, equal access". It doesn't. Eliminate.

(C) Viable -> clear / cost effective / practical / responsive

See if the conclusion says "Therefore, viable". It DOES! Okay, so dig deeper and see if there was a premise that said "This specific thing DOES give us clear / cost effective / practical / responsive". It does. Looks good. If I'm in a timed section and worried about my time, I would bubble in this answer and circle #22 in the test booklet so that I can come back to look over the other two answers, IF I have extra time at the end of the section. If I feel good about my time, I'll probably go ahead and confirm that D and E are bad.

(D) "Those and only those" = bi-conditional. (Nice pick-up!)

There's no way to have a mistaken reversal with a bi-conditional, so this can't be it. Eliminate.

(E) Nutritious -> Carbs and Prot.

See if conclusion says, "Therefore, nutritious". It doesn't. Eliminate.

-------------

It seems like you may have missed the difference between "only if" in the original and "if" in (A). Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have been a fan of (A), since it's not actually backwards.

'X if Y' looks like Y --> X

'X only if Y' looks like X --> Y

Hope this helps.

[JakeY236]

You did a GREAT job explaining that, especially considering you feel a little iffy about it.

There are a just a couple screws we should tighten so that the whole thing can go more quickly and with more certainty.

You perfectly surmised the original flaw:
P1: A --> B and C
P2: X is B and C
------------------
Conc: X is A

Since we're looking for a mistaken reversal, the thing I would be scanning for in each answer is a conditional statement that resembles
A --> B and C (doesn't really matter how many things are on the right side; all we care about is duplicating the mistaken reversal)

How do you know the order in which to write out the flaw? For example, I wrote that
Nontoxic and Not too much energy --> Good solution
Small organic farms are Nontoxic and Not too much energy
-----------------
Conc: Small organic farms --> Good solution

This seems like a valid argument to me. I understand that the way you wrote it is flawed and invalid. But how did you know, from reading the text, to write it out that way?

Thank you.