Q8 - Books updating the classification systems used by many

[rdown2b]

I was able to narrow it down to B and D. Can someone explain why its not D?

[giladedelman]

So, we're told that these books are super expensive, and the only way to sell them is to convince the buyers that they need to adopt the new classification system. From this, the argument concludes that the frequent system changes are just a ploy to sell more books.

Well, that's pretty cynical, huh? Just because convincing buyers that they need the new system is necessary for selling books doesn't mean that selling books is the only reason you would make the change! Maybe the buyers really do need to adopt the new system. Maybe the new systems are created in order to make libraries more efficient for everyone! So the argument clearly assumes that this one possible motive must be the operative motive.

That's why (B) is correct. Maybe the publishers are just out for loot, but maybe they have a more legitimate motive.

(D), on the other hand, is incorrect because the argument simply never says that there is no need ever to change classification systems. It concludes that the frequent change are a ploy by publishers, but it doesn't say that the changes are never necessary.

(A) is incorrect because the argument doesn't say the books are unreasonably expensive, just very expensive.

(C) is out because it's fine if there are other buyers.

(E) would sort of boost the premise by emphasizing how hard it is to get libraries to buy these books; either way, we don't care whether libraries can buy all the books they want. We care about the motivation behind changing these systems.

Answer your question?

[bigtree65]

Hi I have a question.

I don't fully understand why B is the answer, I thought it was the trick answer in this case because the final sentence "Thus these frequent changes in the classification systems are just a ploy by the publishers to make libraries buy their product" never uses the word only. It gives us a possible reason to think that the books are being updated just for this reason but I don't understand why it would be the only reason. I thought that C undermined the conclusion because if there are other buyers then maybe the books aren't even being aimed at being sold to libraries but to someone else altogether and then it follows that this whole thing cant be a ploy aimed at libraries specifically. I know this is a bit of a stretch but I'm just not seeing the "only" claim that B presumes.

Help please

[noah]

Good question!

I think the "just" means "only."

Lisa say she is sick, but she is just trying to avoid the exam.

Lisa say she is sick, but she is only trying to avoid the exam.

Seems pretty similar, no? It's simplest to read (B) in the spirit of pointing out that "hey, maybe it could be both reasons."

As for your thoughts on (C), the premise isn't that the publishers are trying to make libraries believe something, it's "potential buyers." The argument doesn't rule out the possibility that there are potential buyers other than libraries. Furthermore, the argument does softly direct the discussion towards libraries in the first sentence. But, even so, there is a fishy shift from talking about libraries in the first and last sentence, to just potential buyers in the second sentence, where we find our premise. But, if there is a problem with that shift, it'd be this: fails to consider that the changes may be a ploy by publishers to get all potential buyers to buy their products. The issue, if there is one, isn't the existence of these other potential buyers, but whether the ploy is aimed at just libraries.

Now that I've written all that, I've thought of an easier method that Laura Baragona taught me: if the flaw is stated as "fails to consider" make the thing true and see if it disrupts the argument. So, there are some other potential buyers (there are two guys in Sacramento who collect these books and then compete to see who can memorize the latest book most quickly). Does it disrupt the argument? No, we could still conclude that the changes are a ploy aimed at libraries.

[bigtree65]

Yes you're right the error would have to be that the ploy is aimed at more than just libraries, the potential buyers are mentioned your logic is sound, thank you so much for clearing this one up for me!

Also your example with just and only makes a lot of sense, for future reference can I always interpret just as only?

[noah]

for future reference can I always interpret just as only?

Seems pretty safe. I'll have to see if I can come up with a counter-example (other than using "just" to mean "fair").

Can any super geeks out there come up with a counter-example when "just" can't be considered a synonym for "only"?

Crickets...

[WaltGrace1983]

I feel that (C) is wrong also because it simply doesn't get at the main flaw of the argument. The main flaw is that the argument concludes that "it MUST be that THIS is true" from evidence that simply doesn't point to that being the case. It would be similar if I said something like this:

The Cubs haven't won a world series in many years
-->
It must be because they don't practice enough

Can we really conclude the necessary from the sufficient? No. That is what makes this argument flawed. Maybe the Cubs practice more than any other team and are awesome (they're not) but all the other teams always have a better record. Maybe winning the world series has nothing to do with practicing, maybe the winner of the world series is a team that got pulled from a hat (hey! who knows?)

Anyway, I think that (C) would make sense if the argument went something like this:

"All potential buyers believe they need to adopt the most recent system"
-->
"Thus, only libraries believe they need to adopt the most recent system"

Thus, the argument absolutely would fail to consider other potential buyers. Either way, the point is that the argument absolutely does mention other potential buyers - albeit not by name or anything - but it talks about it in the premises. Thus, in no way does the argument fail to CONSIDER other buyers - it just makes a statement regarding one buyer (the library)