June 2004 LR question #25

[uwofresh]

Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its parttern of reasoning to the argument above?

a.) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf.  It follows that alex is not in the chess club.

b.) Sarah's dog is not a dachshunds, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.


Why is the right answer right?  and wrong answer wrong??

[River]

Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its parttern of reasoning to the argument above?

a.) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf.  It follows that alex is not in the chess club.:

b.) Sarah's dog is not a dachshunds, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.


Why is the right answer right?  and wrong answer wrong??

 P1) Good thing---~Harm
 P2) Wealth--------Harm:(contra:~Harm--~Wealth)

 Con: Good thing--~wealth
      contra: Wealth---~Good thing

a.) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf.  It follows that alex is not in the chess club.:
=P1) Alex--Golf:
 P2) Golf--~Chess
Con:Alex--~Chess

b.) Sarah's dog is not a dachshunds, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.
=Sa dog--~Dash
 most Dash-poorly/but some Dash could--very well/some---poorly
 Sara Dog---very well
Here "most" could mean "all or some."

[yiplong]

Just by looking, I will pick the first choice.  words like 'most' should raise a red flag, if I am not mistaken.

well, let me know what the correct answer is. 

[Point and Laugh]

If I'm not mistaken, the answer is (A).

The argument concludes that wealth is not a good thing because wealth has a characteristic (harm) that good things lack.

Likewise, in (A), Alex is not in the chess club because he has a characteristic (affinity for golf) that chess club members lack.

In (B), the argument suggests that Sarah's dog is not a dachshund because he has a characteristic that MOST dachshunds lack. The evidence used here is not quite as strong as that of the original argument and (A).

[uwofresh]

Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its parttern of reasoning to the argument above?

a.) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf.  It follows that alex is not in the chess club.:

b.) Sarah's dog is not a dachshunds, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.


Why is the right answer right?  and wrong answer wrong??

 P1) Good thing---~Harm
 P2) Wealth--------Harm:(contra:~Harm--~Wealth)

 Con: Good thing--~wealth
      contra: Wealth---~Good thing

a.) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf.  It follows that alex is not in the chess club.:
=P1) Alex--Golf:
 P2) Golf--~Chess
Con:Alex--~Chess

b.) Sarah's dog is not a dachshunds, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.
=Sa dog--~Dash
 most Dash-poorly/but some Dash could--very well/some---poorly
 Sara Dog---very well
Here "most" could mean "all or some."

This is a real late response, but I picked B because the premise said "wealth is OFTEN harm to people."  Often means most of the times isn't it?? OFTEN to me doens't equal ALWAYS.  So that's why i never equated it as W-->H  But rather W--most-->H

Is this a wrong way of thinking?

[Steve Butabi]

the last poster is exactly right. you have to examine the question stem more carefully. OFTEN and MOST are similar in effect.

[uwofresh]

the last poster is exactly right. you have to examine the question stem more carefully. OFTEN and MOST are similar in effect.

Huh? but B was the wrong answer....so I couldn't have been right..

[Atlas429]

Both Alex and wealth have a property ("loves golf" and "is often harmful to people") that exclude it from being in another group ("no one in the chess club loves golf" and "good things NEVER cause harm").

With B, even though most daschunds hunt poorly not all of them do. Sarah's dog could be in that minority.

FYI "Most" can be reduced to "some" but it can never be equivalent to "all".

[uwofresh]

Both Alex and wealth have a property ("loves golf" and "is often harmful to people") that exclude it from being in another group ("no one in the chess club loves golf" and "good things NEVER cause harm").

With B, even though most daschunds hunt poorly not all of them do. Sarah's dog could be in that minority.

Yeah, I get that part, but still, doesn't "often" equivocate to "most" when you're trying to diagram it out?

[Steve Butabi]

Both Alex and wealth have a property ("loves golf" and "is often harmful to people") that exclude it from being in another group ("no one in the chess club loves golf" and "good things NEVER cause harm").

With B, even though most daschunds hunt poorly not all of them do. Sarah's dog could be in that minority.

'
Yes. The right answer is B. Did anyone say the right answer was A?

Yeah, I get that part, but still, doesn't "often" equivocate to "most" when you're trying to diagram it out?