Q7 - To become an expert

[SchneiderME01]

This is a describe the flaw question...

My first step is to determine what flaw is present in the arguement and I think I have that part...

Basically both our premis and conclusion are conditional statements

The premise says:
P3 --> E

Conclusion

E --> P3

(P3 = practice 3 hours & E = Expert)

So looking at this it appears that the flaw in this arguement is an illegal reversal or the author is confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition...

My confusion comes in in the wording of the answer choices

The ones I was able to rule out were...
c) because it says ~P3 --> ~E which is the contrapositive of the conculsion but dosen't address teh flaw
d) is out of scope because the argeument dosen't address what is recommended by music teachers
e) is also out of scope because the argeuement isn't talking about weather or not people have the time required to become an expert

That leaves me with A and B

a) seems to focus on the premise and points to the part in the argeument that says "If a person practices a musical instrument for 3 hours each day, they will EVENTUALLY become an expert so this answer choice seems to be saying that flaw in the arguement is that even though the sufficient condition (in the premise) is met the necessary condition is not yet met

Knowing that this is a wrong answer my guess would be that this is a good trap answer because it borrows that language ("eventually") from the arguement but I couldn't say why B is a better answer if I had to guess my guess would be that B points out in an indirect way that 3 hours of practice isn't necessary...

I'm still confused about the difference between A and B and what makes B the right answer and A the wrong answer

thanks for the help!

[timmydoeslsat]

Great breakdown of the problem.

The first sentence of this stimulus turns out not to be a factor at all in this argument.

Premise: P3 ---> E

Conclusion: E ---> P3

This is obviously taking a necessary condition and believing it to also be sufficient, which we know is something that we cannot infer.

Answer choice A gives us this: The conclusion fails to take into account that people who P3 might not yet have reached what everyone considers expert level.

Our premise in this argument is that if you practice 3 hours a day, you will eventually become an expert.

So, while it may be true that some people have practiced 3 hours a day and are not yet experts, they will eventually become an expert.

This is not describing our sufficient/necessary issue, while B clearly does.

Why is this a flaw?

A ---> B

Therefore, B ---> A

It is a flaw because there could be B's that are not A's!

This is what (B) is telling us. There are E's that are not P3's!

P3 ---> E

That is just one way of getting to the idea of expert. There could be so many other ways of getting to E that the argument does not consider, or that it assumes is NOT taking place.

[giladedelman]

Yep, great stuff, you guys! For the folks who don't like looking at abbreviations and arrows:

The premises tell us that practicing is necessary to become an expert, and that practicing for three hours a day is sufficient for becoming an expert. But the conclusion says that anyone who is an expert must have practiced three hours a day. In other words, the argument mistakes the sufficient condition for a necessary one. Practicing for three hours a day is definitely enough, but maybe you could practice for just one hour a day and still become an expert! Hence answer (B) is correct.

As for (A), the thing is, the argument is not concluding that everyone who has practiced for three hours a day is already an expert. So the possibility that this is not the case has no impact on the argument, because the conclusion is purely about those people who definitely are experts.

[WaltGrace1983]

(A) actually agrees with the stimulus rather than pointing out its flaw.

The stimulus says "If people practice 3 hours...they will eventually become experts." This - as you guys already pointed out - doesn't mean that everyone who practices 3 hours is already an expert. If I practiced 3 hours a day for a week on the xylophone - an instrument I have never even touched - will I be an expert? Nope. However, the argument is saying that I will eventually be an expert.

Also, I was a little weary when it said "degree of proficiency." This is by no means a way to automatically eliminate (A) but just something to consider more closely if you get down to (A) and (B).