#3 - Legislator: A foreign company is attempting to buy

[jlaico]

Could someone explain why E is wrong? I was between D and E, and I see why D is a good choice, but to me, the last two sentences would make more sense if they were switched: they would then read as: "Our manufacturers will no longer be able to rely on a domestic supply of iron ore. The end result will be that foreigners will control most of the iron mining here, leaving our manufacturers at their mercy." I think this phrasing makes more sense, which is why I chose E.
Is part of the reason E is wrong that it's not attacking the conclusion as well as D?
Thanks for your help.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi jlaico,

I don't think the last two sentences would even make sense as a switched relationship, let alone as a relationship that is required to be switched.

The relationship in the stimulus is that BECAUSE foreigners will control domestic mining, domestic manufacturers will be at their mercy and will not be able to rely on a supply of iron.

Answer choice (E) is describing a situation where the cause and the effect are reversed. It would mean that the lack of reliable iron for the manufacturers caused the manufacturers to be at the mercy of the foreign companies. That's a causal relationship that does not make sense, let alone a causal arrow that would be required.

Hope that helps!

[DaveWave24]

I had a tough time with this question because it was hard for me to identify which statements were premises that we just take for granted as true and which statements were sub-conclusions that could represent flaws in the legislator’s reasoning. The line about one foreign company buying FerroMetal implying that there would be no possible way to justify stopping other foreign companies seems really shaky- how can we be sure there’s no other possible way? Then the next line of “soon foreigners will control most of the iron mining here” just doesn’t seem to follow- how do we know that foreign companies will actually want to go through with buying the rest of the iron mines? But both of these statements seem to be used in the way we normally see premises being used, where we are supposed to just take them for granted. And the last line about not being able to rely on a domestic supply is confusing to me as well- if the location of the mines stays the same but instead of domestic companies they are now owned by foreign companies, do they no longer fit into the category of “domestic supply”? Ultimately answer choice D saves this question because no matter which way I choose to interpret what the premises are it still has to be the best answer. But I would really like to have a better sense of when something is to be considered a premise and when it’s a sub-conclusion.

[Dana D]

Hey DaveWave,

There is only one conclusion here - that we should prohibit the sale of FerroMetal. All other information in this stimulus are premise in support of that statement. As you correctly identified, these premesis might be true, but overall, this is only one possible outcome of the sale of FerroMetal - there are lots of other possibilities as well, so the overall flaw is that this chain of events is not inevitable.

[DaveWave24]

Hi Dana,

Can you elaborate what you mean by that in relation to my previous post?

And if we are labeling everything except for the main conclusion as premises, wouldn't that mean we accept all of it as true?

[Dana D]

Hey Dave,

Your original post mentioned confusion regarding whether we can take the premises for granted and whether there are sub-conclusions in the stimulus. In this stimulus, there is only one conclusion. Additionally, we always accept everything in the stimulus as true - premises and conclusions. When analyzing the stimulus, you're not trying to determine whether the premise or conclusion is true or not, you are analyzing whether the argument is valid or invalid, and if it is valid, you are analyzing whether it is strong or not.

In this case, we can accept that all the premises presented are true and that the conclusion is true - that is not the issue with the argument. The issue is that the author is creating a cause and effect relationship here and assuming that just because the cause (foreign company buys FerroMetal) occurs, all these subsequent effects will occur. To weaken this argument, we are not challenging the truth of the conclusion or premise; we are challenging the cause and effect relationship itself.

Does that make sense and answer your original question?