A Flaw Question...

[ChiGirl]

Words have been changed for copyrighted issues.

Any course that teaches students how to write is one that will serve them well in later life. Therefore, since some English courses teach students how to write, any student, whatever their major, will be served well in later life by taking any English course.

A flaw in the reasoning of the argument is that the argument

(A) fails to specify adequately exactly how a course can teach students how to write
(I crossed this off!)

(B)  draws a weaker conclusion than is warranted by the strength of its premises.
(I chose this because all they're doing in the conclusion is repeating a premise and I thought their conclusion was weak- restating themselves.)

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

(D)  fails to consider the possibility that some student in certain majors may be required to take a english course.
(I crossed this off!)

(E)  draws a conclusion about all cases of a certain kind on the basis of evidence that justifies such a conclusion only about some cases of that kind.

(WHAT?)
This is the correct answer.

[j_sorr]

"SOME English courses."

[zem52887]

Words have been changed for copyrighted issues.

Any course that teaches students how to write is one that will serve them well in later life. Therefore, since some English courses teach students how to write, any student, whatever their major, will be served well in later life by taking any English course.

A flaw in the reasoning of the argument is that the argument

(A) fails to specify adequately exactly how a course can teach students how to write
(I crossed this off!)

(B)  draws a weaker conclusion than is warranted by the strength of its premises.
(I chose this because all they're doing in the conclusion is repeating a premise and I thought their conclusion was weak- restating themselves.)

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

(D)  fails to consider the possibility that some student in certain majors may be required to take a english course.
(I crossed this off!)

(E)  draws a conclusion about all cases of a certain kind on the basis of evidence that justifies such a conclusion only about some cases of that kind.

(WHAT?)
This is the correct answer.

Your answer choice suggests that a weaker conclusion is drawn, in fact, a stronger conclusion is actually drawn than is merited by the stimulus. The stimulus is saying that any course that teaches students to write well will serve them later in life. It then states that some english courses teach students to write well. Some can be replaced with "at least one course" teaches students to write well. Then it concludes that if you take ANY english course, you will be served later in life.

Answer choice E states that the argument draws a conclusion about all cases on the basis of evidence that only some cases are sufficient to merit such a conclusion. In other words, lets say we have 5 english courses to choose from and only one of these courses teaches students to write well. This satisfies the requirement that some courses teach students to write well (thus serving them later in life) but it does not follow that taking the other 4 courses necessarily serves students well later in life. You can't conclude thus that taking ANY english course serves students later in life.

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

Answer choice C is essentially saying we have an expensive car, say a porsche, therefore each part of the porsche MUST be expensive. While this is a flaw in that you cannot necessarily conclude that just because the car itself is expensive, the tires are also expensive, it is not the flaw of this argument.

[hopeful1985]

^ PERFECT explanation zem!

[tony_rocky_horror]

^ PERFECT explanation zem!

Agreed, I enjoy reading these during the day (at work). Be nice if we had an official question and analysis of the day type thing happening.

[ChiGirl]

Thanks Zem. I just have 1 more I was wondering if you could take a look at.

Psychologist: The majority of skilled artists are very creative people, and all people who are very creative are also good at abstract reasoning. However, not all skilled artists are famous. It follows that some people who are good at abstract reasoning are famous.

The psych's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Most skilled artists are good at abstract reasoning.
(I chose this!)

(B) Most people who are very creative are skilled artists.

(C) Some skilled artists are not famous.

(D) All people who are good at abstract reasoning are very creative.

(E)  Most skilled artists are famous.
(This is the correct answer. But it says in the stimulus not all skilled are famous.)

This is a Sufficent/Justify Assumption question? I'm wondering if I should even waste time w/formal logic questions since they're time consuming for me.

Words have been changed for copyrighted issues.

Any course that teaches students how to write is one that will serve them well in later life. Therefore, since some English courses teach students how to write, any student, whatever their major, will be served well in later life by taking any English course.

A flaw in the reasoning of the argument is that the argument

(A) fails to specify adequately exactly how a course can teach students how to write
(I crossed this off!)

(B)  draws a weaker conclusion than is warranted by the strength of its premises.
(I chose this because all they're doing in the conclusion is repeating a premise and I thought their conclusion was weak- restating themselves.)

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

(D)  fails to consider the possibility that some student in certain majors may be required to take a english course.
(I crossed this off!)

(E)  draws a conclusion about all cases of a certain kind on the basis of evidence that justifies such a conclusion only about some cases of that kind.

(WHAT?)
This is the correct answer.

Your answer choice suggests that a weaker conclusion is drawn, in fact, a stronger conclusion is actually drawn than is merited by the stimulus. The stimulus is saying that any course that teaches students to write well will serve them later in life. It then states that some english courses teach students to write well. Some can be replaced with "at least one course" teaches students to write well. Then it concludes that if you take ANY english course, you will be served later in life.

Answer choice E states that the argument draws a conclusion about all cases on the basis of evidence that only some cases are sufficient to merit such a conclusion. In other words, lets say we have 5 english courses to choose from and only one of these courses teaches students to write well. This satisfies the requirement that some courses teach students to write well (thus serving them later in life) but it does not follow that taking the other 4 courses necessarily serves students well later in life. You can't conclude thus that taking ANY english course serves students later in life.

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

Answer choice C is essentially saying we have an expensive car, say a porsche, therefore each part of the porsche MUST be expensive. While this is a flaw in that you cannot necessarily conclude that just because the car itself is expensive, the tires are also expensive, it is not the flaw of this argument.

[hopeful1985]

this looks like a nasty formal logic justify question.

if someone could also show how to diagram it that would help!

[cflames7]

Thanks Zem. I just have 1 more I was wondering if you could take a look at.

Psychologist: The majority of skilled artists are very creative people, and all people who are very creative are also good at abstract reasoning. However, not all skilled artists are famous. It follows that some people who are good at abstract reasoning are famous.

The psych's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Most skilled artists are good at abstract reasoning.
(I chose this!)

(B) Most people who are very creative are skilled artists.

(C) Some skilled artists are not famous.

(D) All people who are good at abstract reasoning are very creative.

(E)  Most skilled artists are famous.
(This is the correct answer. But it says in the stimulus not all skilled are famous.)

This is a Sufficent/Justify Assumption question? I'm wondering if I should even waste time w/formal logic questions since they're time consuming for me.

I'll jump in here if you don't mind.

If the majority of skilled artists are creative people (say 6 creative out of 10 skilled artists), and all creative people are good at abstract reasoning (6+ artists out of 10). However, not all skilled artists are famous (not all 10, but maybe 5 or 1 or 0). Some people who are good at abstract reasoning are famous... why?

Answer: Most skilled artists are famous (say again 6 famous artists out of 10 skilled).

Therefore, 6 famous artists and 6 creative artists out of 10. Thus, atleast two of these famous artists must be creative, and vice versa, and all creative artists (atleast 2) are good at abstract reasoning.  Therefore, we have atleast 2 people who are famous (and are artists and are creative) who are good at abstract reasoning.


Your answer: Most skilled artists are good at abstract reasoning.

Again majority of skilled are creative (6creative of 10skilled), and therefore 6 artists are good at abstract reasoning (as all creative are good at abstract reasoning).  Therefore, this answer can simply be deduced using the stimulus (6 out of 10 are good at abstract reasoning).  This choice doesn't help if it is assumed, as we can find this out without making an assumption

[zem52887]

Thanks Zem. I just have 1 more I was wondering if you could take a look at.

Psychologist: The majority of skilled artists are very creative people, and all people who are very creative are also good at abstract reasoning. However, not all skilled artists are famous. It follows that some people who are good at abstract reasoning are famous.

The psych's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Most skilled artists are good at abstract reasoning.
(I chose this!)

(B) Most people who are very creative are skilled artists.

(C) Some skilled artists are not famous.

(D) All people who are good at abstract reasoning are very creative.

(E)  Most skilled artists are famous.
(This is the correct answer. But it says in the stimulus not all skilled are famous.)

This is a Sufficent/Justify Assumption question? I'm wondering if I should even waste time w/formal logic questions since they're time consuming for me.

Words have been changed for copyrighted issues.

Any course that teaches students how to write is one that will serve them well in later life. Therefore, since some English courses teach students how to write, any student, whatever their major, will be served well in later life by taking any English course.

A flaw in the reasoning of the argument is that the argument

(A) fails to specify adequately exactly how a course can teach students how to write
(I crossed this off!)

(B)  draws a weaker conclusion than is warranted by the strength of its premises.
(I chose this because all they're doing in the conclusion is repeating a premise and I thought their conclusion was weak- restating themselves.)

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

(D)  fails to consider the possibility that some student in certain majors may be required to take a english course.
(I crossed this off!)

(E)  draws a conclusion about all cases of a certain kind on the basis of evidence that justifies such a conclusion only about some cases of that kind.

(WHAT?)
This is the correct answer.

Your answer choice suggests that a weaker conclusion is drawn, in fact, a stronger conclusion is actually drawn than is merited by the stimulus. The stimulus is saying that any course that teaches students to write well will serve them later in life. It then states that some english courses teach students to write well. Some can be replaced with "at least one course" teaches students to write well. Then it concludes that if you take ANY english course, you will be served later in life.

Answer choice E states that the argument draws a conclusion about all cases on the basis of evidence that only some cases are sufficient to merit such a conclusion. In other words, lets say we have 5 english courses to choose from and only one of these courses teaches students to write well. This satisfies the requirement that some courses teach students to write well (thus serving them later in life) but it does not follow that taking the other 4 courses necessarily serves students well later in life. You can't conclude thus that taking ANY english course serves students later in life.

(C) presumes, w/out providing justification, that what is true of whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts.
(Huh? What does this mean?)

Answer choice C is essentially saying we have an expensive car, say a porsche, therefore each part of the porsche MUST be expensive. While this is a flaw in that you cannot necessarily conclude that just because the car itself is expensive, the tires are also expensive, it is not the flaw of this argument.

Not to take away from cflames who gave a great explanation, but if you're trying to do the formal logic, this is how it should look

Premise: SA most VC (Skilled Artist) most (Very Creative)
Premise: VC ---> GAR (If you are VC then you are Good at Abstract Reasoning)
Premise: SA some are not F (Not all (read: some are not) skilled artists are famous)
Missing Premise: ?

Conclusion: GAR some F (Some who are GAR are Famous)

Let's break it down, we have 5 SA, 3 of which are VC (satisfies premise 1)
Those 3 who are VC we know are also GAR according to Premise 2. According to Premise 3, it would be possible for the 2 SA who are not in the group of 3 who are VC and therefore GAR to be famous. So we can't necessarily conclude that some who are GAR are famous, because in our example we have satisfied all the requirements, and no one who is GAR is also F.

We need to find the answer choice that fixes this issue. Your answer choice, while true, does not address this issue. It is true that most SA are GAR, but that's just combining P1 and P2 while not fixing the disconnect with P3.

If it were the case that most SA are also F, then we know that if we have a group of 5 Skilled Artists, 3 of them are famous and 3 of them are also VC. Furthermore, we know that the 3 who are VC are GAR. Given this setup, there has to be overlap of at least one SA who is F who is also GAR.

Alternatively,

SA   SA  SA   SA   SA
F    F   F    GAR  GAR
GAR

We need to satisfy the requirement that Most SA are VC (and therefore GAR), the only way to do that is by putting a GAR with an SA who already is F, thus there's always an overlap of at least one.

[ChiGirl]

Alright, thank you guys. This was indeed a nasty formal logic one. Were there a lot on October's exam assuming you took it?

I just don't want to waste too much time w/these if there wasn't.