Q25 - The first bicycle, the Draisienne

[caro9]

HI, Im having difficulty understanding why (E) is the answer. I know there is a gap in the argument, when it concludes that some change in values must have occurred. It could well be that the use of the bicycle conformed to values of society and not that values actually changed. Am I missing something? I chose wrong answer (B).

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the post.

I'm flabbergasted ... you're not missing anything! It sounds like you've capably spotted the flaw:

The argument tells us that the Draisienne was invented in 1817, and that after a brief fad, it disappeared until the 1860s. We're also told that new technology is accepted only when it coheres with society's values. From this, the argument concludes that some change in values must have occurred.

The flaw hinges on the phrase "only when," which tells us that cohering with values is necessary for technology's acceptance, but not sufficient: if it's accepted, it coheres with values, but that doesn't mean that if it's not accepted, it doesn't cohere with values. So, exactly as you said, the change in the bicycle's acceptance may have had nothing to do with society's values. Maybe it was coherent with values the entire time, but wasn't accepted for a while because it was too expensive, or because there was a metal shortage, or whatever.

(E) is correct because it identifies this flaw. The argument, in assuming that the initial failure of the bicycle was due to a change in values, ignores other possible explanations (like the ones I suggested).

(A) is tempting, but the argument seems to only assume that this particular fad was not indicative of general acceptance. (Or, it assumes that this fad was indicative of acceptance, but that the end of the fad marked the bicycle's failure -- either way, it doesn't assume that all fads are indicative of acceptance.)

(B) sounds like what the argument does recognize.

(C) is silly. A premise doesn't need support.

(D) is incorrect because the question is clearly answered by the conclusion.

Does that answer your question?

[ccalice21]

I found the exact flaw, but chose the same wrong answer B.

Now that I think of it, the reason I did it wrong was that I failed to recognize the following are equivalent:

1. disappearance of bicycles
2. NOT accepting the technology
3. failure of bicycles (in E)

I had in mind something related to necessary/sufficient after reading the stimulus, but then got confused with the language when I move on to the choices.

[cdjmarmon]

Im confused on how there can be an "initial failure" when a fad ensued after it was invented.

Is it because it says a "brief fad ensued?"

Pogs was a hugely brief fad. Yet, Id be hard pressed to say they had an initial failure.

[mcarmody]

That's the aspect of the question I'm struggling with too. When they refer to the "initial failure" are they supposed to be referring to the initial failure AFTER the initial fad or are they talking about initial financial failure because in this case, that makes absolutely zero sense and seems to go against the premise. It doesn't seem to help any that they question "Why was THIS?" with this being entirely too vague. Do they mean the ending of the fad/beginning of the failures OR why did they later accept bicycles (the way I read it). I know that was my reasoning when I eliminated E.

[austindyoung]

So I deleted my confusing original response to this Q. Did it again and got it correct.

Here's what's going on in a nutshell:

Tech Accepted---> Cohere to Values

Practically disappeared (Tech NOT Accepted)


HENCE

Change in Values (NOT Cohere to Values)

It's a Mistaken Negation. When this occurs, as with a Mistaken Reversal, the Sufficient Condition is assumed to also be Necessary. This creates an illicit biconditonal statement that in effect says "A allows B to be the case, therefore only A allows B to be the case."


In tougher Assumption Questions, we are tested on the same Formal Logic that we would see earlier in the section. For example, there could be a Sufficient Assumption Q, let's say #7. The gap for such an early problem will likely be easy to spot because when the argument uses repeated terms, it uses the exact same words/phrases.

In tougher problems later in the section, the words will be repeated with sneaky synonyms or it may not be single words, but actually whole phrases that are uses as "A" and "B" and repeated through synonymous but not readily apparent phrases that are also "A" and "B." So you're tested on the same thing you did in #7- but now you have to sift trough the muck to get to the skeleton of what is going on.

Many times these arguments will be longer and look "normal," thus craftily hiding the Formal Logic the question is testing you on. This problem did that.

So, (E) is correct, per the example I gave above, because (E) is stating that just because Tech Accept is Sufficient, it is not Necessary. If A then B, and NOT A, you can still have B.

I hope this makes sense!

[rhkwk1441]

Here is my take on this question.

Breakdown:

Premise 1) The first bicycle was not accepted ("practically disappeared").
Premise 2) New technology accepted --> coheres with the values of a society
Conclusion) Some change in values must have occurred.

My thought process was as follows:

1. Wait a minute. The conclusion is a huge jump from the premises. How can we say the values have changed?
2. (figuring out a counter argument in my head) - maybe the values remained the same but the first bicycle just didn't cohere with the values;
maybe bicycles came to cohere with the values after some sort of modifications between 1817 and 1860s.
3. Okay let's find something along this line of "fail to consider other possible explanation."
4. (E) - bingo!

So the whole issue (at least what jumped to me) is that the conclusion is unwarranted. There are two possibilities: societal values change while the bicycle remain the same or societal values remain constant while the bicycle changes. The argument simply precludes the other possibility.
I am not sure if my analysis is correct or not but this is how I did it anyways. Hope it helps.

[loladerewerg273]

Hi everybody, I want to let you know about an amazing website called https://www.mrsshilts.co.uk/family-friendly-biking/ . Here you will discover all the required advice if you're wondering how to select the most comfortable seat for kids' bikes. To ensure that every youngster feels secure and safe while bicycling, they provide a variety of seats in various models and sizes. Check out this website to provide the best comfort for your children.