#17 - For several years the Technology Institute has used a new experimental

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C).

In this stimulus, the author draws an interesting conclusion from a survey of the Technology Institute's plumbing graduates. We are told that for several years now, the Institute has used a new experimental curriculum in its plumbing program. But only 1/3 of the Institute's plumbing graduates were able to pass the plumber's certification test--well below the national average. Because of this, the author concludes, the new curriculum has lowered the quality of plumbing instruction.

However, we are missing a very crucial piece of information: what was the pass rate before the new curriculum was implemented? The author makes the mistake of assuming that because the pass rate is low, that the new curriculum is responsible for it. But it could very well be that the pass rate was lower before the new curriculum was implemented (say, 10% or so) and the new curriculum raised it to 33%. Not amazing, but certainly an improvement.

Answer choice (A): The argument never does this. While it does treat the low pass rate as an effect of a supposed lowering of plumbing instruction quality, there's no evidence at all that the low quality of instruction caused the new curriculum. Skip.

Answer choice (B): Careful--the author never used the quality of instruction as a conditional. The author never stated that because there's no evidence the quality of instruction increased that it decreased, but rather that because the pass rate is so low, the new curriculum has lowered the quality of plumbing instruction. Skip.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Yes! A 33% pass rate does seemingly indicate below-average quality, but that doesn't mean that this is a decline in quality. Like we saw before, this 33% could be an improvement.

Answer choice (D): It's unnecessary to specify what exactly the national average is for it to be acceptable in this argument. Skip.

Answer choice (E): This is code for a Mistaken Reversal flaw, which this argument doesn't commit.

[gwlsathelp]

Question type: Flaw

Correct answer is C) "concludes that something has diminished in quality from evidence indicating that it is of below-average quality"

I did not select this answer because I saw that the evidence did not indicate that the plumbing program was below-average quality, only that their students weren't passing at the same rate as the national average. I agree with the first part of the answer though. I pre-phrased that the conclusion would be flawed as it uses causal reasoning, so I'm not sure how the correct answer is correct?

[rocketman16]

I got this one wrong initially as well (I had picked B at the time), but upon reviewing it I can see more clearly why C is correct. The evidence indicating that the program is below average is exactly what you described: The success rate on the test is well below the national average. The author is trying to use that piece of information to conclude that the new curriculum has lowered the quality of instruction, but the problem is that we have no idea how well students from the program were performing relative to the national average BEFORE the new curriculum was established. If the students were still doing about as poorly before the new curriculum as they are now, then the curriculum has not lowered the quality of instruction at the institute. In fact, the students might actually be performing better now than they were previously while still being well below the national average, and both scenarios would indicate that the problem is more with the school itself than the new curriculum. However, the author does not give us any information about the pre-curriculum performance, so we don't know what the case is. All that we know based on the stimulus is that this is a below average program at the moment.

Let me know if I'm missing anything!

[Fightforthat170]

Hi PS:

I'm wondering if B's "...lack of evidence that the quality of the institution's plumbing instruction has increased..." is descriptively accurate, since the stimulus did not explicitly say that there is a lack of evidence, but they also didn't show that there were increase pre-new curriculum.

Is it a good rule of thumb that if the stimulus didn't mention something, then any answer choices discussing it would be descriptively inaccurate? no matter if it is describing the "lack of" ?

[gwlsathelp]

The author is trying to use that piece of information to conclude that the new curriculum has lowered the quality of instruction, but the problem is that we have no idea how well students from the program were performing relative to the national average BEFORE the new curriculum was established. If the students were still doing about as poorly before the new curriculum as they are now, then the curriculum has not lowered the quality of instruction at the institute. In fact, the students might actually be performing better now than they were previously while still being well below the national average, and both scenarios would indicate that the problem is more with the school itself than the new curriculum. However, the author does not give us any information about the pre-curriculum performance, so we don't know what the case is. All that we know based on the stimulus is that this is a below average program at the moment.

This is really well explained, thank you, @rocketman16. I see that I had chosen the answer choice that describes a mistaken cause and effect where the events may be reversed. I thought, "treats a phenomenon as an effect [1/3 graduation rate] of an observed change [instruction program] in the face of evidence indicating that it may be the cause of that change," but that's not possible as the program has been going on for several years before the survey of graduation rates, although it could be that the change causes the effect of low graduation rates.

Would C) constitute an error in assessing the force of evidence where some evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is true?

[Adam Tyson]

An excellent explanation from Rocketman - thanks for the assist!

FIghtfor that, you got it right: "not mentioning" is not the same as "relying on a lack of" that thing. For this family of questions, if the answer describes something that didn't happen in the stimulus, then that answer is incorrect. FYI, a flaw like that described in answer B would be along the lines of "there is no proof that the new curriculum has helped, so it must not have helped (and has, in fact, hurt)."

And gwlsathelp, I try to avoid putting labels on flaw answers, because many flaws can be described in more than one way. I think your view is a fair one, though! There is some evidence that might support the conclusion, but the author is a little premature in drawing that conclusion because more evidence would be required first. My first thought about this flaw was that it had to do with relativity, treating an absolute claim (paraphrasing the stimulus, it means the students in this program are doing poorly) as if it proves a relative claim (they are doing worse than they used to). Neither of these prephrases is "right" or "wrong," just different ways of seeing the same problem. As long as your prephrase gets you to the best answer choice, it's a good one!

[sofisofi]

hi,
I was wondering why A was wrong.
Thanks for any explanation!

[mkarimi73]

I also have the same question as the previous poster ^^

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - May I know why Answer Choice A and E are wrong? Thanks!

[lynsi123456789]

I’m going to take a shot at why (a) and (e) are wrong.
But I'm not sure if I processed this properly. Can staff olease advise if this works?

(A) treats a phenomenon (1/3 pass rate) as an effect of an observed change (new curriculum) in the face of evidence indicating that it (the phenomenon—1/3 pass rate ) may be the cause of that change (new curriculum).

The argument doesn’t say this. If it did, it would look something like, “because of the 1/3 pass rate the institute is trying a new experimental curriculum.”

(E)confuses a factor's presence (new curriculum) being required to produce a phenomenon (lower quality plumbing instruction) with a factor's presence being sufficient (new curriculum) in itself to produce that phenomenon (lower quality of plumbing instruction).

The argument's conclusion does claim that the new curriculum is sufficient to lower the quality of the plumbing instruction, but the new curriculum is not required.