Q5 - logician: I have studied and thorougly mastered the law

[rdown2b]

I was wondering why this answer couldnt be c? and D is good?

[mcrittell]

C) Physical laws, by definition, can't be broken--especially in the same way as breaking logical laws, which's why D) is correct

[noah]

Short and sweet explanation above!

To round it out:

The implied conclusion is that there's a problem in suggesting that this logician might break the laws of logic in ordinary conversation. Why? Because he (only a guy could be this ridiculous) claims to have mastered the laws of logic. And, analogously, claiming he would violate these laws would like saying a physicist violates the laws of physics in everyday life.

This is a great opportunity to let your inner debater run free. What would you say to this guy? You'd say - that's ridiculous! A physicist can't violate the rules, and if that was possible, then whatever that supposed law of physics was it's now dis-proven as a law! You can't compare laws of logic and of physics! One is a set of rules that we can follow, the other is a set of laws that we have no choice but to follow!

(D) points out the difference in the two topics.

(A) is out of scope - conception? Tempting, but just because our conception changes doesn't mean laws change.

(B) is about the premise - we never were told the physicist had mastered anything. Comparing the difficulty of mastering each is irrelevant.

(C) is tempting - hey, can't physicists break those laws too? Your analogy sucks! But, as the poster above noted, laws of physics are laws because they are unbreakable!

(E) is tempting-sounding, but simply not true. The conclusion doesn't contradict any premise. Stand your ground to those sorts of answer choices!

[esnanees]

[quote="noah"]Short and sweet explanation above!

To round it out:

The implied conclusion is that there's a problem in suggesting that this logician might break the laws of logic in ordinary conversation. Why? Because he (only a guy could be this ridiculous) claims to have mastered the laws of logic. And, analogously, claiming he would violate these laws would like saying a physicist violates the laws of physics in everyday life.

This is a great opportunity to let your inner debater run free. What would you say to this guy? You'd say - [i]that's ridiculous! A physicist can't violate the rules, and if that was possible, then whatever that supposed law of physics was it's now dis-proven as a law! You can't compare laws of logic and of physics! One is a set of rules that we can follow, the other is a set of laws that we have no choice but to follow![/i]

(D) points out the difference in the two topics.

(A) is out of scope - conception? Tempting, but just because our conception changes doesn't mean laws change.

(B) is about the premise - we never were told the physicist had mastered anything. Comparing the difficulty of mastering each is irrelevant.

(C) is tempting - [i]hey, can't physicists break those laws too? Your analogy sucks![/i] But, as the poster above noted, laws of physics are laws because they are unbreakable!

(E) is tempting-sounding, but simply not true. The conclusion doesn't contradict any premise. Stand your ground to those sorts of answer choices![/quote]



Noah- thanks for the explanation. However, lets say i am a lay man and do not know the difference between laws pf physics and logic: would it be safe to assume that both disciplines are different? I understand D is the best choice but i want to make sure my reasoning is correct.

[noah]

Noah- thanks for the explanation. However, lets say i am a lay man and do not know the difference between laws pf physics and logic: would it be safe to assume that both disciplines are different? I understand D is the best choice but i want to make sure my reasoning is correct.

That'd be a tough spot! I guess you'd work wrong-to-right, and also smell that there must be some reason the analogy doesn't work - that somehow the two disiplines are different.

Thanks for the question.

[WaltGrace1983]

While when I was going through this question I understood it as absolutely ridiculous using just basic knowledge of the world, I think you can rule out (C) without knowing ANYTHING about physics. Let's look at (C): "fails to rule out" that "some physicist could circumvent the laws of physics." Let's take this is true - laws of physics can be circumvented - and apply it.

Logician has mastered the laws of logic

-->

Arguing that logician broke the laws of logic is like arguing that a physicist broke the laws of physics (which, according to (C) is possible)

Even if it is possible though, what does it point out in the argument? Okay, breaking the laws of physics is possible, but does this attack the gap between the premise and the conclusion? Just because one has studied logic and just because one has studied physics does not entail anything about how their situations are analogous. We need to understand how their situations are analogous to make this argument work and that is the flaw. (C) really only gets at the conclusion but doesn't do anything for the premises and our job is to see where the gap is between them.

Can someone tell me if this thinking is right?

[noah]

While when I was going through this question I understood it as absolutely ridiculous using just basic knowledge of the world, I think you can rule out (C) without knowing ANYTHING about physics. Let's look at (C): "fails to rule out" that "some physicist could circumvent the laws of physics." Let's take this is true - laws of physics can be circumvented - and apply it.

Logician has mastered the laws of logic

-->

Arguing that logician broke the laws of logic is like arguing that a physicist broke the laws of physics (which, according to (C) is possible)

Even if it is possible though, what does it point out in the argument? Okay, breaking the laws of physics is possible, but does this attack the gap between the premise and the conclusion? Just because one has studied logic and just because one has studied physics does not entail anything about how their situations are analogous. We need to understand how their situations are analogous to make this argument work and that is the flaw. (C) really only gets at the conclusion but doesn't do anything for the premises and our job is to see where the gap is between them.

Can someone tell me if this thinking is right?

I'm Noah Teitelbaum, and I approve this explanation.

[jiangziou]

I think you can rule out (C) without knowing ANYTHING about physics.
Logician has mastered the laws of logic
-->
Arguing that logician broke the laws of logic is like arguing that a physicist broke the laws of physics (which, according to (C) is possible)

Even if it is possible though, what does it point out in the argument? Okay, breaking the laws of physics is possible, but does this attack the gap between the premise and the conclusion? Just because one has studied logic and just because one has studied physics does not entail anything about how their situations are analogous. We need to understand how their situations are analogous to make this argument work and that is the flaw. (C) really only gets at the conclusion but doesn't do anything for the premises and our job is to see where the gap is between them.

I'm Noah Teitelbaum, and I approve this explanation.

I'm confused.
Is that the gap? ---> The premise doesn't mention one side of the analogy, so the conclusion cannot prove how those two situations analogous.
Does that mean that the conclusion cannot legitimately include any analogy because the premise only mentioned Logician?

[renata.gomez]

Hi,

Just thought Id share my though process and confusion.

I understand why D is correct but I chose C because I thought that if the author didn't make the assumption that one can't circumvent the laws of physics then the analogy falls apart. I thought one possible gap could be making this assumption.

Can someone tell me where my process goes wrong?

Thank you!