Q23 - company president

[cyt5015]

I have troubles to eliminate E, can someone help me with that please? Thanks in advance!

[rinagoldfield]

Hi cyt5015!

Thanks for your post. This is a "Match the Flawed Reasoning" question. The first thing we need to do is identify the reasoning flaw in the stimulus. I like to abbreviate nouns as letters on these problems; this helps me spot the reasoning issues through the specific subject matter. The original argument here goes like this:

Almost every SP in the past had MTC
VB has a MTC
Therefore VB will be a SP

Do you spot the reasoning flaw? Even though this isn’t pure conditional logic (we have "almost every" rather than "every" in the premise) this is basically reversed logic.
The argument also takes past performance as an indicator of future performance.
We’re looking for a similarly flawed structure in the answer choices:

Almost every X in the past had Y
Z has Y
Therefore Z will be X

Let’s go from top to bottom.

(A) gives us a bad match. It tells us:
Amost every O is S
~S
Therefore ~O
This is basically the contrapositive"”not what we’re looking for.

(B) almost seems like a match. It gives us the following:
Almost every CSP has 10YE
D has 10YE
D will be a CSP
This has the same reversed logic problem as the original. However, the original argument looked at the PAST for evidence (successful products IN THE PAST had tv campaigns) but this answer choice looks at the CURRENT state of affairs at Coderight Software.

(C) Muddles up the almost alls, and puts an "almost all" in the conclusion. Not what we’re looking for.

(D) gives us both the reversed logic and the past/future reasoning flaw. It tells us:
Almost every SUP in the past had PHD
R has PHD
Therefore R will be SUP
This is what we’re looking for.

(E) doesn’t have the logic reversal we’re looking for! (E) tells us:
Almost every PN in the past has been P
S is a PN
Therefore S will be P

Hope that helps! Remember you’re looking to match all of the flaws.

[Alvanith]

Maybe I am wrong, but I see AC (B) in a different way...

(B) says "..., AND Donna will probably be hired as a programmer..."

So it looks like the structure of the argument is:

P1: Almost every CSP has 10YE
P2: D will be a CSP
-----------------
C: D has 10YE

Could anyone help me with this?

[brian.howton]

Could anyone help me with this?

You don't need it. That's the right diagram!

Thanks to rinagoldfield for breaking apart the problem! I can much better understand why (D) is right.

[gaheexlee]

One more thing to add about (B) and (D):

The stimulus' conclusion is qualified and weak with the inclusion of the word "probably."

(B)'s conclusion is absolute: Donna has at least 10 years of experience.

(D)'s conclusion is tentative: Robinson will probably be appointed.

(B) does have the word "probably" in its answer choice but don't be fooled- "probably" here isn't part of the conclusion, but rather of the premise!

[gabcap1]

One more thing to add about (B) and (D):

The stimulus' conclusion is qualified and weak with the inclusion of the word "probably."

(B)'s conclusion is absolute: Donna has at least 10 years of experience.

(D)'s conclusion is tentative: Robinson will probably be appointed.

(B) does have the word "probably" in its answer choice but don't be fooled- "probably" here isn't part of the conclusion, but rather of the premise!

I disagree. I interpreted "Donna will probably be hired as a programmer for coderight" is the conclusion.

B is a nitpicky elimination no matter which way you slice it, in my opinion. But what did it for me was working at Coderight versus being hired.

Work at coderight (most) --> 10+ years experience
D 10+ years experience --> will probably be hired

Doesn't match. The stimulus, on the other hand, never deviates from "successful."

[phoebster21]

One more thing to add about (B) and (D):

The stimulus' conclusion is qualified and weak with the inclusion of the word "probably."

(B)'s conclusion is absolute: Donna has at least 10 years of experience.

(D)'s conclusion is tentative: Robinson will probably be appointed.

(B) does have the word "probably" in its answer choice but don't be fooled- "probably" here isn't part of the conclusion, but rather of the premise!

Exactly! I think if the STIM had said, :and we will probably use a massive television ad campaign to introduce the vegetaste burger," and "So the vegetaste burger will be very successful" THEN it would have matched B Better.

Also, can someone clarify whether Alvanith's diagraming of B was correct? I felt the same way too... instead of there being a switch in the two terms, A--> B, B --> A, It actually seemed more like A --> B, A --> B....

Computer Programmer ---almost every---> 10+ YE
Donna: probably be hired as Computer Programer
Conclusion: Donna: has at least 10+ YE


I guess it depends really on whether you interpreted "Donna has at least ten years of expreience as a comp programmer" or "and Donna will probably be hired as a programmer" to b the conclusion....

Which is it????

[Didius Falco]

I think previous folks have mixed up (B) a little. The elimination need not rely on past/future distinctions in evidence---its mismatch is inherent in the structure.

As a previous poster noted, The argument goes:

Donna will prbly be hired as a programmer
+
Almost every programmer has @ least 10 years of experience

--------Yields conclusion----

Donna has @ least 10 years of experience.



We know that Donna's experience is the conclusion derived from the evidence as a result of the structuring of the sentence (I've attempted to simply and clarify the structure with bolding and a brief addition or two):

"Donna has at least ten years experience... since almost every programmer [does]....and [since] Donna will probably be hired."

At least as I see it, it is pretty clear that the first clause before the coma is the conclusion which the remainder of the answer is attempting to prove (incorrectly--but thats beside the point).

[eddie5492]

Any advice on how to recognize the argument in the stimulus as a suff/nec flaw rather than categorizing it as a correlation/causation flaw?

[Yu440]

Hi, I am just wondering if E is considered a valid argument? (Because it sounds sensible to me... at least intuitively) Or does it commit a flaw of predicting future performances based on past performances? Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think (E) is what we'd call "sensible" or "reasonable", but not valid.

Valid arguments have conclusions that are guaranteed to be true. There's no guarantee in (E).

ALMOST ALL, not all, of the published novels have been profitable. And we know nothing about "Safekeeping", so it could be importantly different from the previous roster of novels published by Peninsula.

The fact that the conclusion is only saying "probably" is what helps make it seem reasonable / sensible.

But again, "Safekeeping" could be a remarkably unappealing novel, and were we to learn more about it, we might not at all be comfortable with the prediction that it will "probably be profitable".