Q23 - Only computer scientists understand

[marycreery]

I don't see why "only" is wrong, it doesn't say "all" computer scientists, it says those that appreciate these advnaces must by computer scientists...?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Oh, I'm so glad you asked about this one! It's one that I really like...

This question asks us to find the flaw, and there's a ton of conditional logic in here.

Here's the argument put into formal notation.

UA --> CS
AAT --> UA
------------
CS --> AAT

(Formal Notation Key: UA = understand the architecture, CS = computer scientist, AAT = appreciate the advances in technology)

The flaw is that the conclusion mistakes a sufficient for necessary condition. The answer choices don't provide that as an answer. Think about it like this, the conclusion is not warranted by the evidence. While it is true that everyone who appreciates the advances in technology is a computer scientist, the argument fails to consider that some computer scientists do not appreciate the advances in technology. This is something that could be true based on the evidence, but is not considered by the conclusion. This claim is best represented in answer choice (B). I found this claim by meeting the sufficient condition of the conclusion and failing to meet the necessary condition.

So when I saw that the flaw was in the conclusion, I knew to attack it. If one of the premises had been reversed instead, then I would have attacked the assumption of the argument.

Attacking the conclusion that

Every computer scientist appreciates the advances in technology.

would be best accomplished by saying

Some computer scientists do not appreciate the advances in technology.

If the argument had been

A --> B
C --> B
--------
A --> C

Here the flaw is in the second premise, so I would figure out what it should have said (B --> C) and attacked that, by saying some B's are not C's. Very abstract, I know, but that's how it works!

(A) is wrong. There is an implied relationship, just not the one concluded.
(B) raises a serious concern with the argument, because it could be true based on the evidence and would completely destroy the conclusion.
(C) is a true statement, but is not a flaw committed in the process of drawing the conclusion that "only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists."
(D) is not true. A conclusion could be reached from the evidence, but it would be the reversal of the conclusion drawn.
(E) is not true. The argument does not presuppose that everyone understands the architecture of personal computers.

Does that help? Let me know if you'd like me to explain anything further!

[lisahollchang]

Thanks, this is really helpful!

[skapur777]

What is the argument's implied relationship?

I ruled out A because the argument's conclusion implies that there IS a connection between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in technology.

Of course, this conclusion is wrong. But it's still what the conclusion implies/states...

right?

[shaynfernandez]

How does only those appreciate advances are computer sciences make appreciate these advances as necessary wouldn't that be sufficient and computer scientis necessary?

[timmydoeslsat]

Think about it this way.

Only those who take the MCAT are doctors.

Doctor ---> Took the MCAT

The statement is telling us a necessary condition of a group.

[samuelfbaron]

UGH.

I mistakenly diagrammed this one:

"If you 're a comp sci you understand the architecture..."
CS --> UA

"If you understand the architecture, you appreciate..."
UA --> AAT

"If you appreciate these advances you're a comp sci"
-----------
AAT --> CS

[anthony.spitzer55]

Thanks for the great response, Matt. This is my first time posting but I've found this forum to be a great help so far.

I'm having some trouble understanding how you are diagramming, though.

For the sentence (1) "only those who understand the architecture appreciate the advances in technology," you get: "AAT --> UA." This makes sense.

However, for the sentence (2) "only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists," you get: "CS --> AAT." This doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it be diagrammed: "AAT --> CS"??

Here's an example of illustrate the difference. If you say, "Only those who waterski swim," a sentence that mirrors (1), you should get: "Swim --> Waterski."

However, if you say, "only those who waterski ARE swimmers," a sentence that mirrors (2), you should get: "Water Ski --> Swim," not the other way around.

Just wondering if this thought process was correct?

[WaltGrace1983]

I am also very confused about the "only those" conclusion. I just simply don't know why it is not AA → CS rather than (the correctly diagrammed) CS → AA.

Help?

[maryadkins]

"Only those who are/do X" is the same thing as "Only X do/are..."

The distinction a previous poster made between water skiers swimming and water skiers BEING swimmers is not correct. That's the same thing.

So if I say, "Only those who go to college are happy," that's the same as saying "Only college-going people are happy," both of which make going to college the necessary component: If you're happy, you went to college. (This is a ridiculous example.)

H --> C

Make more sense?

[WaltGrace1983]

"Only those who are/do X" is the same thing as "Only X do/are..."

The distinction a previous poster made between water skiers swimming and water skiers BEING swimmers is not correct. That's the same thing.

So if I say, "Only those who go to college are happy," that's the same as saying "Only college-going people are happy," both of which make going to college the necessary component: If you're happy, you went to college. (This is a ridiculous example.)

H --> C

Make more sense?

So if I say, "Only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists," that's the same as saying "Only appreciate-advances people are computer scientists," both of which make computer scientists the necessary component: If you're appreciative of advances, you are a computer scientists. (This is a ridiculous example.)

A --> CS

I just substituted what you just said.

What did I do wrong?

[christine.defenbaugh]

"Only those who are/do X" is the same thing as "Only X do/are..."

The distinction a previous poster made between water skiers swimming and water skiers BEING swimmers is not correct. That's the same thing.

So if I say, "Only those who go to college are happy," that's the same as saying "Only college-going people are happy," both of which make going to college the necessary component: If you're happy, you went to college. (This is a ridiculous example.)

H --> C

Make more sense?

So if I say, "Only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists," that's the same as saying "Only appreciate-advances people are computer scientists," both of which make computer scientists the necessary component: If you're appreciative of advances, you are a computer scientists. (This is a ridiculous example.)

A --> CS

I just substituted what you just said.

What did I do wrong?

Well, you flipped it, right where I highlighted in red. Mary used the element closest to the "only" as the necessary condition, while you used the one further away. You reversed it! If you'd kept it strictly parallel, it would have been this:

So if I say, "Only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists," that's the same as saying "Only appreciate-advances people are computer scientists," both of which make appreciaters the necessary component: If you're a computer scientist, you appreciate these advances.

CS --> A

Now, I think what's throwing you off is that the word "only" can show up in a few different (kind of obnoxious) ways. So, you have to actually assess a sentence that has "only" in it, and not just knee-jerk it into a certain box. The most common point of confusion with "only" is the difference between the plain use of "only" and the use of "the only".

The only person who can call me Chris is my mom.
Only my mom can call me Chris.

Both of these translate to: If you call me Chris --> you are my mom.

These are the essential examples of the difference between plain old 'only', and 'THE only'. I generally think of plain old 'only' as the typical case, as it's a lot easier to parse, and I think of 'the only' as the special, weird, broken-up sentence I have to be careful with. Notice that "the only person" is talking about "my mom", even though they are kind of far away from one another physically in the sentence.

Now, let's talk about different syntax constructions that do, grammatically, exactly the same thing as the plain old 'only' example:

Only my mom can call me Chris.
Only if you are my mom, can you call me Chris.
Only those people who are my mom can call me Chris.
Only the mom of me can call me Chris.

We can change "only" to "only if", "only those", "only the" (and probably some other things) and it doesn't change either the grammatical meaning or the logical meaning of the sentence. It all still translates to "If you call me Chris --> you are my mom."

Does this help a bit?

[eve.lederman]

From my understanding, the reason B is the correct answer is because B is the conclusion that should follow from the premises. Is that more or less correct?

[tommywallach]

Hey Eve,

This is a "identify the flaw," whereas the logic you're applying would match with an "inference" question.

-t

[cyt5015]

What if we change answer C to "the argument ignores the fact that computer scientists may appreciate other things rather than (except, not) the advances in technology made in the last decade? Will that make answer C correct?
Answer C will wreck a conclusion like "It follows that computer scientists only appreciate the technology advances". computer scientists appreciate--> technology advances. In contrast, the original conclusion in stimulus is diagrammed as: computer scientists-->appreciate technology advances. Location of the word "appreciate" makes the logics totally different.
Additionally, answer B and C both can be correct for a necessary-sufficient reverse mistakes, which is why I always find myself debating between the two whenever I saw the two answers. There must be some subtle differences I have not truly digest. Can any expert shed some light on my concern please?

[maryadkins]

What if we change answer C to "the argument ignores the fact that computer scientists may appreciate other things rather than (except, not) the advances in technology made in the last decade? Will that make answer C correct?

You wouldn't see that — it's too confusing. (I also don't actually know what this would mean, because it's not a sentence you'd really ever see.)

C is wrong because it just doesn't have to do with the argument. We're not at all talking about OTHER THINGS the scientists may appreciate. Eliminate answer choices for easy reasons when you can! This one should be a quick knock-off!

[DavidP715]

I'm still confused on this one. If the only people who can understand the architecture are computer scientists, and the only ones who understand the architecture are those who appreciate, then shouldn't it follow that those who appreciate can only be computer scientists? If the only ones who can understand the architecture (Must be a CS) are those who appreciate it, then it is perfectly fine if some CS don't appreciate it but the fact is that the only ones who can appreciate are Computer Scientist! The thing with B is that it says some computer scientists don't appreciate, but I don't see how that is a flaw. They never stated that ALL computer scientists MUST appreciate, but that they DO appreciate if they understand the architecture. And saying only a certain a group CAN do something like understanding the architecture doesn't mean they all MUST understand it. I feel like i'm going in circles here! Not sure if i'm making sense but realizing my mistake here would be of great benefit!!

Oh, I'm so glad you asked about this one! It's one that I really like...

The flaw is that the conclusion mistakes a sufficient for necessary condition. The answer choices don't provide that as an answer. Think about it like this, the conclusion is not warranted by the evidence. While it is true that everyone who appreciates the advances in technology is a computer scientist, the argument fails to consider that some computer scientists do not appreciate the advances in technology. This is something that could be true based on the evidence, but is not considered by the conclusion. This claim is best represented in answer choice (B). I found this claim by meeting the sufficient condition of the conclusion and failing to meet the necessary condition.

So when I saw that the flaw was in the conclusion, I knew to attack it. If one of the premises had been reversed instead, then I would have attacked the assumption of the argument.

Attacking the conclusion that

Every computer scientist appreciates the advances in technology.

would be best accomplished by saying

Some computer scientists do not appreciate the advances in technology.



Does that help? Let me know if you'd like me to explain anything further!

[armeliush716]

Hi,

I have the same opinion as above ^.

How does only those who appreciate architecture of computers appreciating advances and only those individuals being computer scientist's make it a flaw that some scientists may not appreciate the advances made in the last decade.

More simply how is it a flaw that some computer scientists don't appreciate the advances, nothing in the premises states that they all must appreciate the advances made (only that computer scientists are the only class of people who do).