#11 - Last year the Lalolah River was ranked by the Sunvale

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Khodi7531]

So I kinda got a bone to pick with this one. I immediately knew the issue with the argument, and first thing that popped into my head was, "the other rivers have been more polluted than the previously low ranked one" and wanted to attack that.


I see how E says that and I was torn with these answers. I know A, and D are classic answers that are for unproven vs untrue and part to whole. But I get tricked a lot on these because there are times when I look at questions and say I know it's not it (specifically with part to whole because they categorize so many tricky questions as that) and so i'm always hesitant to cross it off unless I really know.

However, I chose D over E. I thought D spoke more about the actual "FLAW" in the argument that it's saying that one rivers pollution is not enough to conclude about others. I get how part to whole is kinda different from this, but because the question was asking for "reasoning in the argument is flawed because" I assumed you're supposed to point out what.

I thought E was just weakening it by talking about "the other ranked rivers". Even thought that's what I anticipated, it isn't asking you to weaken, or to give criticism. It's asking you to identify a flaw, no?


And I thought that's different. I've gone through questions that have asked for identifying a flaw and when I chose sorts of answers like this, that basically weaken it while explaining, it's incorrect because those random outside words brought into the answer, like "other ranked rivers" is out of scope.


So why is it any different here? I probably can come to chose an answer like E in the future, but I need to understand better how to approach questions in regards to the issue it's asking me to identify.


Please help!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E doesn't weaken the argument, khodi, because it doesn't bring up any new information that makes the argument worse. All it does is describe a problem within the argument, which is that it treated a relative claim (it went from 1st to 3rd) as an absolute claim (it got better). If it was a weaken answer it would have said that some other rivers actually DID get worse.

To pick a part-to-whole or whole-to-part flaw answer, you have to see that the author said that either the parts of a whole have a certain characteristic and that therefore the whole has that characteristic, or that the whole has a characteristic and therefore EACH PART (or a PARTICULAR part) must therefore have it. In this stimulus, there was no whole, as nothing was said about the District as a group (like "the Sunvale Water District is much less polluted than it was a year ago, therefore the Lalolah river in that district must be cleaner now than it was.")

In short, a Flaw answer merely describes what's wrong, while a Weaken answer takes advantage of that flaw by introducing evidence that makes the conclusion itself less likely to be true. It counters the argument in an active way, rather than describing it in a passive way.

Trust your prephrase, khodi! You KNEW that it was about the possibility that other rivers may have gotten worse rather than the Lalolah getting better! Pick the answer that best matches your prephrase, and do so with confidence. Embrace it, select it, and move on!

[pmuffley]

Hello!

I got this one correct, but fought with it for a minute. I know, I know...don't fight it : ) My initial problem with E was that is said a "relative decrease". Please let me know if the way I got myself to pick E is correct )))

This is how I set it up:

Last Year: Layola: 15 tons R2: 14 tons R3: 12 tons
This year: R2: 20 tons R3: 18 tons Layola: 15 tons

There was no decrease in Layola...the others just got worse. So it is incorrect to conclude that the measures must be working. Although Layola did not decrease itself....the word "relative" is what makes E right because it did relatively decrease (in rank) only because the others increased in tonnage.

E would have been incorrect if it had said "equates a decrease with an absolute decrease", right? Because it didn't actually decrease in tonnage.

[Robert Carroll]

pmuffley,

Your hypothetical illustrates why answer choice (E) is the flaw, and, indeed, a "decrease" IS an "absolute decrease", so if an answer had said that instead, it would be wrong because that's not even a flaw.

Robert Carroll

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.,
I was stuck between contender answer choice C and E and picked C instead.
I predicted for this answer choice that it needed to address the ranking. Which is why I thought it was an overlooked possibility between the difference in ranking. This is why I picked answer choice C. Is answer choice C incorrect because the flaw doesn't need to know the "basis" for ranking?

Also, is answer choice E classified as an # and % flaw because "decrease relative to" is a number (in the argument, the number decreases from 3 to 1) and "absolute decrease" is a percentage (as in a rank compared to the other 15 rivers).
I'm trying to improve on recognizing common flaw types.

Thank in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer C is not a good answer here, GGIBA003@FIU.EDU, because it does not describe a problem inherent in the structure of the argument itself. It's the kind of thing that the author could respond to be saying "so what? I can provide that if you want." A good flaw answer has to be something that the author, upon hearing it, would be forced to say "oops, my bad, you're right, I made that mistake." Answer C doesn't necessitate that sort of response.

I think it's fair to think of this as a numbers and percentages flaw, because a change in ranking is sort of a percentages idea while a decrease in pollution is definitely a numeric one. But I think of this one as being what we call a "Relativity Flaw," which is where the author treats a relative relationship, like "better" or "more expensive," as if it proves an absolute claim like "good" or "expensive." To illustrate, the jeans I am wearing right now were more expensive than the t-shirt I am wearing, but the jeans were not at all expensive (I think I paid about $12 for the jeans and maybe $6 for the t-shirt; thank you, Marshalls!)

In this case, the river getting better relative to other rivers (dropping from worst to third-worst) does not prove that it actually got better (an absolute claim rather than one that shows a comparison). That's the flaw, and that's what we need the correct answer to describe, forcing the author to respond by saying "oops, my bad!"

[g_lawyered]

I didn't think of that flaw type but it does make sense. Thanks again Adam!