#17 - The radio station claims that its new format

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mpoulson]

Hello,

Can you explain why A is wrong and the answer is instead B? I thought the biased party was the radio station who made claims that were based on a insufficient number of people. Please explain why this is wrong and B is more appropriate. Thank you.

- Micah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Micah,

Please provide a detailed breakdown of how you understood the argument. At the very least, we expect to see evidence that you were able to:

• Deconstruct the stimulus into premises/conclusion. Here, we have two arguments - please break them down individually.
• Understand whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and if not - why not?
• Correctly identify the type of question in the stem.
• Prephrase an answer to that question. (Don't be afraid if your prephrase was off - we still need to see what it was).
• Defend your choice of (incorrect) answer choice.

The more you tell us about your method of approach, the better we can help you figure it out.

Thanks!

[maximbasu]

Hi,

I chose answer choice D while the correct ANS is B.
Micah makes a good point above with A; I didn't think of that.

The stimulus states:
1. POV radiostation--> its new format is awesome: why? 3/4 its listeners love it
2. Conclusion: evidence is not conclusive
3. Support: an analogy; this study is like a political candidate producing propaganda--saying he's liked by everyone by interviewing only his supporters

Task: ID argument structure

My reasoning for D: I thought the argument was valid + that the candidate analogy aimed to show the conclusion to be false. Is D wrong because the analogy is invalid?

Is B correct because the "inference that is clearly flawed" attempts to compare listeners who themselves call in with a candidate interviewing people? Since agency is different in both cases, that is why B is wrong?

MB

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Micah,

My reasoning for D: I thought the argument was valid + that the candidate analogy aimed to show the conclusion to be false. Is D wrong because the analogy is invalid?

Is B correct because the "inference that is clearly flawed" attempts to compare listeners who themselves call in with a candidate interviewing people? Since agency is different in both cases, that is why B is wrong?

First, off, B is not wrong - it is the correct answer choice. That's probably what you meant to say, but just making sure

Second, whether the argument is valid or not is not the issue. Indeed, the argument proceeds by analogy, and analogical reasoning is by definition inductive. We can evaluate such reasoning on a spectrum from strong to weak, not on a binary model of valid vs. invalid. The latter model is reserved for deductive arguments, such as those based on conditional reasoning. Furthermore, our task is to describe how the argument proceeds, not evaluate its relative strength. Always keep in mind the task at hand!

Answer choice (D) is wrong not for the reasons you state, but rather because it describes the author's use of analogy as a counterexample. Analogies are not counterexamples! Yes, the author is trying to show that the radio station's conclusion is false, but it does so by describing an analogous case involving political elections. For answer choice (D) to be correct, the author should have said something along the lines of, "Look at WGBH-Boston: only 5% of radio listeners in Boston listen to it, even though the vast majority of those who do are pleased with its format."

A counterexample must directly counter the opposing claim by describing a situation in which the premises might hold true, but the conclusion does not. Essentially, it needs to demonstrate an exception to the general rule claimed in the original argument. In this case, a suitable counterexample would show that a particular radio station might be greatly enjoyed by the majority of its own listeners, but not by the general public. That's different from an argument by analogy, which is based merely on a similarity between two situations and the conclusion drawn is a result of that comparison. In this argument, we have an analogy, not a counterexample.

Hope this helps! Let me know.

Thanks,

[lunsandy]

Hi Nikki,

This may be a slight tangent from the question, but I was thinking about what you were saying about "counterexamples." Would it be possible to see counterexample as an answer choice for a flaw questions to show that the argument is an exception to the case described in the premise?

Thanks a lot!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Lunsandy,

It is possible that a stimulus's flaw is that the speaker ignores possible counterexamples. This is flaw can be described as an error in the use of evidence, specifically an overgeneralization or an exceptional case.

You would not however see a specific counterexample provided in a flaw question. Rather the correct answer would merely point out that coutnerexamples may exist or that the speaker did not consider all possible cases.

[harvoolio]

I got this one wrong by overthinking. Ugh. Amazingly, I got this question wrong with a one-word pre-phrase "Analogy."

I was looking for an answer like "Using an analogy to illustrate a flaw".

So, when I got to answer choice (B) I thought it was a trap answer and using analogy wrong when I expected a simple phrase "argument by analogy".

Is this how "argument by analogy" always appears on the test — "referring to an inference that is clearly flawed in order to undermine an analogous inference"? If not, what other ways have you seen "argument by analogy" written?

Thanks.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Harvoolio,

They have plenty of wording choices here, simply because of the versatility of the English language. Here are some examples:

• D97, LR2, #2: "It relies on an analogy between two things that are insufficiently alike in the respects in which they would have to be alike for the conclusion to be supported." (Flaw question)
  
  D08, LR1, #5: "offers a faulty analogy" (Flaw question)
  
  D10, LR2, #4: "It provides the basis for an analogy used in support of the argument’s overall conclusion." (Argument Part question)
  
  S17, LR2, #3: "It connects an analogy made in the argument to the argument’s conclusion." (Argument Part question)

All those above use the word "analogy," but that's not a necessary part of this. An analogy can go by several different descriptions, including "comparison between two items," "similarity of features," "items that are comparable in multiple respects," or any synonymous phrasing.

Thanks!

[oli_oops]

Hello,

I eliminated B because when I saw B, I was expecting something more like "using an analogous inference (voting political candidate" to undermine the case mentioned (radio station format)"

I chose A instead, now I see that A is wrong maybe because the survey was not conducted *by* a biased party, but got responded to by a biased sample population..?

I eliminated B both rounds (practice test and blind review), now that I know B is correct, my understanding/interpretation of why it is correct is:

"referring to an inference (political candidate case) that is clearly flawed in order to undermine an analogous (radio station format) inference."
which would be swapping what I first expected when I eliminated B. hope I didn't make this more confusing.....

Is that correct?

Thank you!!

oli