#23 - Editorial: Given the law of supply and demand, maximum total utility is

[smile22]

Would you mind explaining why answer D is correct and C is incorrect? I had trouble eliminating either of these choices and chose answer C.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Smile,

This is a tough question. C is there to trick you, because it is actually irrelevant to the question; the argument is that it is not most likely to bring about maximum total utility, but C is just talking about it still being possible to bring about maximum total utility, which doesn't actually address the argument. Answer D, on the other hand, points out that trying to achieve a pure free market economy is not the same thing as ensuring a pure free market economy, and therefore it is possible that trying to bring that about is not actually the most likely way to ensure maximum total utility (since we know that other types of economies still might be able to achieve it).

[smile22]

Thank you for the explanation.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

"Given the law of supply and demand,"

Premise: "maximum total utility is assured only in a pure free market economy," (if MTU then PFME)

"although other types of economies might be able to achieve it."

"Obviously, then,"

Conclusion: "a country that has a highly controlled economy," (Not "a pure free market economy" NOT PFME )

"and is not trying to bring about a pure free market economy,"

Conclusion continued: "is not acting in the way that is most likely to bring about maximum total utility." (NOT most likely MTU)

Premise: if MTU then PFME

Conclusion: if NOT PFME then most likely NOT MTU via the contrapositive; if (most likely) MTU then PFME

So the trouble here is the premise is saying if this then that, and the conclusion is saying if most likely this then that, jumping from true to most likely true???

Answer choice D, the correct answer, says "presumes, without providing justification, that trying to bring about a condition that will ensure the achievement of an end must always be the way most likely to achieve that end"

To verify, the condition is pure free market economy, and the end is maximum total utility, is that right? "Trying to bring about a condition [pure free market economy?] that will ensure the achievement of an end [maximum total utility?] must always be the way most likely to achieve that end [maximum total utility?]"

Please send help.

Thank you.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

(Incorrect) Answer choice C says, "fails to consider that the way [pure free market economy?] most likely to achieve a particular end [maximum total utility?] may not be the only way [pure free market economy?] to achieve that end [maximum total utility?]"

Does C say, fails to consider that the way most likely to achieve maximum total utility may not be the only way to achieve maximum total utility?

Why is this incorrect?

(Correct) Answer choice D says, "Trying to bring about a condition [pure free market economy?] that will ensure the achievement of an end [maximum total utility?] must always be the way most likely to achieve that end [maximum total utility?]"

Does D say, "Trying to bring about a pure free market economy that will ensure the achievement of maximum total utility must always be the way most likely to achieve maximum total utility?

Why is this correct?

Please help. Thank you.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

(Correct) Answer choice D says, "Trying to bring about a condition [pure free market economy?] that will ensure the achievement of an end [maximum total utility?] must always be the way most likely to achieve that end [maximum total utility?]"

Does D say, "Trying to bring about a pure free market economy that will ensure the achievement of maximum total utility must always be the way most likely to achieve maximum total utility?

Is Answer choice D saying, if PFME then (most likely) MTU. Is the flaw a mistaken reversal?

Conclusion: if NOT PFME then most likely NOT MTU via the contrapositive; if (most likely) MTU then PFME

I have to move on for now I guess. Sadness.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi kristina,

You wrote:

Premise: "maximum total utility is assured only in a pure free market economy," (if MTU then PFME)

The concern that I have with your diagram "(if MTU then PFME)" is that you may misread that to mean:

"if maximum total utility, then pure free market economy"

Of course, that's not actually what the premise states, which is "if maximum total utility is assured, then a pure free market economy." This may not seem like a big difference, but it is an important distinction because it is possible to have maximum total utility without a pure free market economy. In fact, the very next clause of that premise clarifies this.

(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you did misread that sentence, just that I can't really tell from your diagram.)

I'd diagram this conditional statement as follows, just for absolute clarity.

MTUA -> PFME

Now what the conclusion should have said if it were to correctly use the contrapositive would have been "If a country does not have a pure free market economy, then it cannot assure maximum total utility."

Of course, where the argument goes wrong is the wording of the conclusion, which does not match that contrapositive. Instead the conclusion shifts to the idea of trying to bring about a pure free market economy (which is not the same as having a pure free market economy) and shifts to "most likely to bring about maximum total utility" which is not the same as assuring maximum total utility.

Just because a pure free market economy is necessary to assure (i.e. guarantee) maximum total utility does not mean that a pure free market economy is the most likely way or easier way to achieve it. There may be other ways to achieve maximum total utility that are more likely (because they are easier, for example) even if those ways do not assure/guarantee maximum total utility. Answer D captures this flaw.

While this argument involves conditional reasoning, the flaw isn't really a Mistaken Reversal or a Mistaken Negation. It's just a change of terms/ideas in the conclusion that don't quite match the terms in the conditional premise.