#14 - We learn to use most of the machines in our lives

[mattm]

Can you assist me with this problem to see if I'm on the right track?

I picked C as the right answer but wanted to know why E is wrong?

Is E wrong because the word choice of "never" is too strong to be assumed here? Or is E wrong because E doesn't link the premises to the conclusion (learning how to use machines is a different topic than the job market/preparing students for it?

Thanks! ( I would like to see explanations for the other answer choices in this problem)

[David Boyle]

Can you assist me with this problem to see if I'm on the right track?

I picked C as the right answer but wanted to know why E is wrong?

Is E wrong because the word choice of "never" is too strong to be assumed here? Or is E wrong because E doesn't link the premises to the conclusion (learning how to use machines is a different topic than the job market/preparing students for it?

Thanks! ( I would like to see explanations for the other answer choices in this problem)

Hello mattm,

Answer E might indeed be wrong because of the word "never". The stimulus seems to say that technological skill isn't all-important, but that doesn't mean it can never be more important than verbal/quantitative skills. For example, some jobs for experts might need an expert level of technological skills. --And, like you said, answer E doesn't really discuss the job market.
...As for other answer choices: answer A is not terribly relevant (about the changing educational trends). Answer B might be a strengthener of sorts, since it puts down the idea of expertise, but it doesn't rise to the level of being a necessary assumption. And answer D sort of links the learning of tech and verbal/quant skills, but again, education is not really the issue here.

Hope this helps,
David

[LAM]

I am doing some assumption question drills because on my practice tests I am bombing assumption q's and related ones (flaw and weaken specifically). So, I am reviewing these older tests. I picked E on this because I thought I needed to bridge the concepts of machines found in premise and technical expertise found in conclusion. I often get assumption questions wrong which is demoralizing. I understand the negation technique - but when the clock is ticking you don't have a lot of time to go through all this. Maybe I am reading C wrong. I thought it said, most future jobs will not require expert-level ability to operate the machines. In other words, it will just continue being a non-expert function, as stated in premise. When I do the negation technique, this works I guess. But for some reason I keep moving right past the right answers on these assumption questions. Can someone please help?

[Kristina Moen]

Hi LAM,

In this stimulus, you noted some discrepancies between the premise and the conclusion, and that's good! I will also add that you should pay attention when you see language that indicates time: past / present / future. A classic flaw is when something has happened before, so the author concludes it will happen again or continue happening (think "I ate cake yesterday and the day before, so I will eat cake tomorrow.") You might think of it as a "status quo flaw." So an Assumption for a flaw argument like that might read "Things will stay the same" or "There will be no changes" (of course with the specific facts of the stimulus!).

That is what we see here with answer choice (C): "Most jobs in tomorrow’s job market will not demand the ability to operate many machines that are designed for use only by experts." The premise stated that "most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts" (emphasis added) and then made a prediction about the future based on that premise. But that's assuming that people will continue operating those machines specifically designed for nonexperts (and they will not have to operate the machines designed for experts).

The Assumption Negation technique works like a charm here, but you have to know which ones to negate. If you negate every answer choice, you lose time. However, one great thing about practicing the Assumption Negation technique (and that includes negating all answer choices when you are not being timed, or going back and negating answer choices when you review) is that you get a lot faster. It becomes much more intuitive to negate an answer choice. For example, with answer choice (C) you just take out the word "not." You can almost do that as you read it. Good luck!

[LAM]

thanks Kristina. That helped - especially thinking about the 'status quo' element. Also, when I reviewed the question just now, the answer I chose originally didn't link all the info. In other words, the conclusion introduces the concept of job market - so I didn't link the premise material with that element. Is that another way to look for wrong answers? Ones that do not link new conclusion material?

[Adam Tyson]

You bet, LAM! Many questions will involve new or "rogue" info showing up in the conclusion, and that's gold for you as a test taker. Whether you want to weaken, strengthen, justify, find an assumption, or describe a flaw, that new info in the conclusion is usually at the heart of the answer. This is especially obvious in most assumption and justify questions, where the correct answer must "link" the info in the premises to the new item in the conclusion. Those two question types are different, though, so be careful - something that is merely an assumption of the argument (sometimes called a "necessary assumption") is not necessarily going to justify (prove) the conclusion of the argument (some would call that sort of answer a "sufficient assumption" because it is sufficient to prove the conclusion). New info in a conclusion should stand out like a sore thumb or the bat signal, setting off alarms for you as you prephrase and dive into the answer choices to sort them into losers and contenders.

Keep up the good work!

[LAM]

Thanks Adam!

[nutcracker]

Hello! I was able to identify (C) as the correct answer to this question, but I find it a bit hard to cross out (B). If I use the assumption negation technique, I get "facility in operating machines designed for use by non experts is sometimes enhanced by expert knowledge of the machines' inner workings", which in my opinion would also weaken the argument. Does it though?

On the other hand, upon examining (C) more closely, I wonder if the correct way to negate this statement is to simply remove the "not" in the sentence. It looks more like a polar opposite to me, but I haven't come up with a better way to negate it.
I would appreciate some help with this one. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, nutcracker! The biggest problem with answer B is that it fails to address the essential element of "tomorrow's job market". So what if expert tech knowledge might enhance facility with machines designed for non-experts? Will we be using those in tomorrow's job market? That answer doesn't close the gap between the premises and the conclusion, although it does perhaps get partway across.

Answer C is the better choice because it gets us all the way to tomorrow. Removing the "not" in that answer gives you the logical opposite, which in this case may also be viewed as a polar opposite. If it's true that tomorrow's job market will require experts, or at least expert-level knowledge, that pretty well wrecks the claim that in the future technological expertise will be no better than traditional verbal and quant skills.

Make sure your answer choice closes the gap between the premises and the conclusion, and that the negation, should you try using it as a test, wrecks the argument either by contradicting the conclusion or by removing all support for it.

Keep at it!