#13 - Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other

[voodoochild]

The question says "If ramps are installed, wheelchair guys will visit businesses"

The correct answer to "most strongly support" says
"If no ramps, no wheelchair guys" How could this be true? Thoughts?


Thanks

[Steve Stein]

In approaching logical reasoning questions, it is a good idea to react to the stimulus when possible, and sometimes spell out the author's implications. In that particular example, the editorialist says that after accommodations, such as ramps, are installed, people who use wheelchairs come to those businesses.

What is implied? That the lack of ramps is keeping those people away. That strongly supports the idea that there are at least some (a very soft claim) business areas that don't attract wheelchair customers because of their lack of ramps and other such accommodations.

I hope that's helpful--let me know. Thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

STeve,
Thanks for your reply. However, I am still not following.

If I say that "Once new airport scanner is put in, the malicious attempts to infringe airport security will be curtailed"

Does it mean that "no scanner => no attempts"? This is not true in conditional world. Correct?

If I go to Boston, I go to MA"

IF I don't go to Boston, I don't go to MA? No. I go to Cambridge. Thoguhts?

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response; you say that you are not following my explanation--rather than moving on to a new hypothetical, let's deal with the issue at hand. Which part of my explanation do you not understand?

Please let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Steve,

I wasn't clear about "In that particular example, the editorialist says that after accommodations, such as ramps, are installed, people who use wheelchairs come to those businesses. " Are you implying that there is NO conditionality involved here?

I am a bit confused. Can I translate the above statement as "If ramps are installed => Wheelchairs guys will visit"? If the answer is yes, then the correct answer is simply negation of suff and nec condition. How could that be possible? I am a bit lost.

Please help.

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. First, I am not claiming or implying that there is no conditionality here. In your hypothetical you allude to the problem of Mistaken Negation. The problem with trying to apply that logic in this context, I believe, is that the argument here does not come down to the validity of a contrapositive.

Let's simplify, using conditional language:

"Some" claim:

NO wheelchair users currently frequenting Accommodations unneeded


Editorialist (with the word "however" implies "I'm not so sure..."):

Accommodations built Wheelchair users subsequently visit

As you can see, the two claims deal with slightly different conditions. They are not contrapositives of one another, nor Mistaken Reversals, nor Mistaken Negations--nor do they share any standard, formulaic relationship. What do I draw from this? Not that there is no conditionality there, but that standard conditional reasoning might not be the key to solving this one.

Interesting discussion--let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Thanks for your response. First, I am not claiming or implying that there is no conditionality here. In your hypothetical you allude to the problem of Mistaken Negation. The problem with trying to apply that logic in this context, I believe, is that the argument here does not come down to the validity of a contrapositive.

Let's simplify, using conditional language:

"Some" claim:

NO wheelchair users currently frequenting Accommodations unneeded


Editorialist (with the word "however" implies "I'm not so sure..."):

Accommodations built Wheelchair users subsequently visit

As you can see, the two claims deal with slightly different conditions. They are not contrapositives of one another, nor Mistaken Reversals, nor Mistaken Negations--nor do they share any standard, formulaic relationship. What do I draw from this? Not that there is no conditionality there, but that standard conditional reasoning might not be the key to solving this one.

Interesting discussion--let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

thanks for your response Steve. I think that my question was about Editorialist's conclusion and the correct answer E)

Please let me know where I am going wrong.

Concl - If ramps are installed -> people who use wheelchairs come to shop and work.

Ans choice E) says - areas lack proper accomodation (or ramps are not there) -> business areas are not frequented by wheelchair guys.

How could this be correct? I am really struggling with this question. Please help me

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response--I think you've touched upon the issue. Take another look at the stimulus, and at the question. The editorialist does not draw any conclusions, but merely states facts.

And the question asks what we can draw from the editorialist's statements.

Editorialist: "Some" claim that ramps are unnecessary at certain businesses, because those businesses are not frequented by wheelchair users.

(as an aside, consider what a ridiculous argument this is--of course wheelchair users aren't going to frequent businesses without ramps and other such accommodations! If they aren't given access, how can they be expected to show up?)

Editorialist: However, after they build accommodations, wheelchair users show up.

Again, the editorialist has drawn no conclusion. Based on the editorialist's comments, however, we can glean that at least some businesses are not frequented by wheelchair users for the very reason that they lack accommodations.

Please let me know whether this clears that one up--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Editorialist: However, after they build accommodations, wheelchair users show up.

Again, the editorialist has drawn no conclusion. Based on the editorialist's comments, however, we can glean that at least some businesses are not frequented by wheelchair users for the very reason that they lack accommodations.

Please let me know whether this clears that one up--thanks!

~Steve

Thanks Steve for your response. You are correct - the question is an inference question. I am losing my mind. Sorry.


Yes, now my question is on the blue part. How can we say that when there are no accomodations, there will be no wheelchair guys ? I am not able to get this in the conditional world. {If I say ...If X then Y. It would be wrong to say that If Not X then Not Y.} Isn't it? I am not able to understand this part. It will be really helpful if you could comment on it.


Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Your question:

How can we say that when there are no accomodations, there will be no wheelchair guys ?

We can say these things because the editorialist specifically says so.

The editorialist says that business owners claim no need for accomodations. Based on what? Based on the fact that they are not frequented by wheelchair users.

Once again: These businesses that don't have accomodations are not frequented by wheelchair users.

This is not offered as some sort of broadly applicable conditional rule--the editorialist is saying that with regard to these specific businesses that lack accomodations, they are not frequented by wheelchair users.

Then the author tells us that what happens is this: After businesses build accomodations, wheelchair users will come.

The bolded statements above are two facts provided by the author.

Again, this is not a question that is intended be solved with standard conditional logic like many of the sufficient-necessary questions on the test.

Trying to force conditional logic where it is not effective is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Let me know whether this still confuses you--thanks!!

~Steve