#10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim that our concert

[TOgren2424]

Thanks Emily!

[Leela]

Hi, I have two questions. First, I assume I can't use the assumption negation technique to answer all flaw questions, so how do I know when I can use it to rule out answer choices? Additionally, I didn't identify this as a relativity flaw and I don't recall this flaw type from my course material. Could someone please give a more thorough explanation of the relatively flaw and maybe a couple of examples? I want to make sure I can accurately identify the flaw type moving forward.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi, I have two questions. First, I assume I can't use the assumption negation technique to answer all flaw questions, so how do I know when I can use it to rule out answer choices? Additionally, I didn't identify this as a relativity flaw and I don't recall this flaw type from my course material. Could someone please give a more thorough explanation of the relatively flaw and maybe a couple of examples? I want to make sure I can accurately identify the flaw type moving forward.

Hi Leela,

You can use Assumption Negation on Flaw in the Reasoning answers that say "presumes" or "takes for granted," and in those cases it can be used to see if the argument has indeed made the assumption. If so, you just then need to make sure it's a flaw.

The relativity flaw idea is really just a variation on the Error in the Use of Evidence category. It trades on taking a piece of information about a relative relationship and then drawing a broader, unwarranted conclusion. Here are some example flaws:

• Mary is taller than Jamal, therefore Mary is a tall person. — Umm, we can't know she's a tall person. What if Mary and Jamal are both 2 years old?
  
  Terrence is slower than Kendra, thus Terrence is slow. — Wait, what if Terrence is a great sprinter but Kendra is a world class sprinter? Terrence could be incredibly fast but still not win.

In other words, although by comparison (or relatively) we know a relationship between two entities, we have to be careful about drawing further, broader conclusions from that relative relationship.

Thanks!

[Leela]

Thanks, Dave! Very helpful!

[a19]

Hi,

So I was just wondering why the phrase "equal to or greater than" does not offset the relativity flaw in this argument. If the concerts being compared to were abysmal (i.e. had 0 popular appeal) and the promoter were attempting to prove popular appeal (anything above 0 in this case), then the numerical translation of popularity would simply be anything greater than 0. In this sense, answer choice C "takes granted that the comparable series posses popular appeal" would not be a required assumption of the question, because the object which the present promoter is using as a standard could be 0. Thanks!

Best
a19

[George George]

@a19

The way you're writing about answer (C) sounds to me like you're applying the Assumption Negation Technique, which, if anything, proves that answer (C) is the correct answer. If, as you say, the "comparable series" only possessed sales of 0 "t-shirts and other memorabilia," then, indeed, the argument wouldn't stand. So, the author must be assuming that these "comparable series" are not so low as to disqualify them from "possessing popular appeal."

Now, you also seem to suggest that there is a "relativity flaw" here. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, @a19. However, I think what you're getting at is that the author is not very precise or specific about what amount of sales of "t-shirts and other memorabilia" would qualify a series as "possessing popular appeal." And you're right about that! The author never states anything specific about what quantitiy or number of "t-shirts and memorabilia" is the threshold for popularity. Therein lies the "gap." "Popular appeal" is the rogue term in the conclusion, and the right answer is that, even though it's a vague and unspecified unit of measurement, the author must be assuming that these "comparable series" do, in fact, have it. The takeaway here is to look for opinion phrases (or as my law professors like to call them, "terms of art") and spot them as gaps or rogue elements necessitating supporting assumptions.