#20 - Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (A)

The argument can be analyzed as follows:

Premise: Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in
an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.

Conclusion: Almost anyone can be an expert.

The argument contains a classic conditional form: In abstract form:

Premise: Convince some people Expert (A B)

Conclusion: Expert Almost anyone (B)

The element that must be added to justify the conclusion is: In abstract form:

Convince some people Almost anyone (A)

Answer choice (A) contains this element and is the correct answer. Use the Justify Formula to
confirm the answer if it is still unclear.

Many students mistakenly select answer choice (D). Answer choice (D) is the Mistaken Reversal of
the premise. Use the Justify Formula to reveal why this answer fails:

Premise: Convince some people Expert

Answer choice (D): Expert Convince some people

Does the combination of these two statements prove that almost anyone can be an expert? No, and
therefore the answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it only justifies the conclusion that some people are experts.

[berrysugar]

Hello.
I chose answer (C) for this one.
I thought the columnists's conclusion is that 'Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area is an expert.'
I recognized the first sentence as a premise because it offered the reason(for there are no official guidelines determining~). And I thought this one was just a distractor element.
My reasoning was that answer (C) Convincing one is qualified ----> Actually qualified(=Experts), proving the conclusion I recognized.
I thought 'being actually qualified' in answer (C) was a rewording element.
I feel like next time I run into a similar question, I won't be able to recognize the conclusion accurately, and I don't know how to identify whether it's a rewording element or not. How could I fix this?

[Dana D]

Hey Berry,

If you have trouble identifying conclusions, try and think the stimulus formulaically. If the conclusion was "Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area is an expert" as you thought, then we should also be able to identify premises that support that idea.

So, working backwards, we have the idea that "Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area is an expert." Imagine this was the first idea someone presented to you - it's their conclusion, or their main point, so it can stand alone as a big idea. But you don't understand why they believe this - you ask for some premises to support this claim.

The support for that would have to be the only information in the stimulus, the first sentence, which is really two ideas:

1. "Almost anyone can be an expert"
2. "there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know"

Thinking of it this way, does it seem like these two ideas support the conclusion that anyone can be an expert if they just manage to convince some people of their qualifications?

Compare that to how this argument flows when you correctly identify the conclusion, which is that "almost anyone can be an expert." If I make this claim and you ask for support, I would offer two premises to explain myself:

1. There's no official guidelines to determine what an expert must know
2. Anybody who manages to convince some people of their qualifications is an expert.

Now you can not only see how these two statements support my premises, you can also identify a huge gap in my reasoning - in order say "almost anyone" can be an expert, than "almost anybody" has to be able to convince someone of their qualifications in an area.

[harps96]

How is that you could tell that the second sentence did not have a conditional relation?

[Dave Killoran]

It does have one: "Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert" is the same as " Premise: Convince some people Expert" in the first post above.

Thanks!