- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Oct 04, 2015
- Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:50 pm
#21830
Hi Kristina,
I think your reasoning above in the paragraphs you asked about is correct in most respects, but I wanted to add a few small clarifications that might be helpful.
First of all, you are definitely correct that this question is asking us to close the gap between B and C in your revised diagram, since we need an answer choice that will take us from what we know (in some countries (those in which information is controlled by a small elite), vital information is denied) to the new element in the conclusion (those countries are likely to experience more frequent economic crises). Answer choice (B) does this perfectly by telling us that, where less information is available (what we know from the premises), economic crises become more frequent (the new element in the conclusion).
You are also correct in your response to Adam that there is no causation in this stimulus, so that we therefore cannot assume that unavailability of information is caused by control by a small elite. Yes, you are right that all we know from the stimulus is that a correlation exists: in countries in which the relevant information is controlled by a small elite, the majority is denied vital information.
So I would agree that you are almost entirely correct when you reason that, “just because we see the term government in the answer choice (assuming this means the small elite), . . . we can't automatically presume the information in that country is limited.” What you said therefore makes sense: that the “reason for saying that it is not true that limited information MUST follow from elite control” is that “we have only correlation not causation.”
But I would also expand on what you’ve said to include the fact that we cannot assume that “government” is synonymous with a small elite—since, e.g., an oligarchic government might consist of a small elite, but a democratic government might not necessarily be a small elite. I think it is important to see that, on the basis of what this stimulus tells us, it would be an unwarranted assumption to think that “government” is interchangeable with “small elite,” making (C) an irrelevant answer even if it were revised to speak of more frequent economic crises.
But perhaps a simpler way of looking at this is not to dwell on causal reasoning, since the stimulus never employs it, but to think about the conditional relationship the stimulus describes with respect to the second type of country discussed:
Relevant information controlled by small elite
majority denied vital information
From this we know that, whenever we see a small elite controlling the relevant information, we will also see the majority of the population denied vital information. This gives us no basis at all for concluding that in those countries, economic crises will be more frequent, since more frequent economic crises are a new element that never appear in the premises. So to prove the conclusion true, as we are asked to do, we need to link that new element back to something we know is true from the premises. What is important to see here is that, even if (C) were revised, as you suggested, to speak directly about the new element of “more frequent economic crises,” it still wouldn’t give us what we need because it doesn’t link that element to anything we actually know, since government control of information could presumably lead to greater access.
If it helps to think of this stimulus causally, however, I do think you’ve got it right when you say that “government control doesn't automatically equate to there being less information, because we do not know what actually causes there to be less information.” And you are definitely right to point out that the link we need here in order to make the conclusion follow logically is between “the ‘less information’ aspect of the stimulus and [the] ‘frequency of the crisis’” asserted in the conclusion. The only thing that worries me about your reasoning is that you seem to be mistakenly thinking that, in order to dismiss answer choice (C) as a loser, the predominant thing that we need is to be able to say that the relationship between elite control and denial of information is a correlation rather than causation.
In fact, what is important to justifying the conclusion in this stimulus is exactly what you pinpointed above: closing the gap between denial of information to the majority and the likelihood of more frequent economic crises. Without that missing piece, even establishing a causal link between small elite control (or even government control) of information and reduced availability of information wouldn’t get us where we need to go, which is for the premises plus the answer choice to prove the conclusion true. I could be absolutely certain that government control of information will cause reduced availability of information; but I still wouldn’t know whether this would mean more frequent economic crises, so the conclusion would remain unproven.
Or, to return to your question from above:
I hope this helps!
Laura
I think your reasoning above in the paragraphs you asked about is correct in most respects, but I wanted to add a few small clarifications that might be helpful.
First of all, you are definitely correct that this question is asking us to close the gap between B and C in your revised diagram, since we need an answer choice that will take us from what we know (in some countries (those in which information is controlled by a small elite), vital information is denied) to the new element in the conclusion (those countries are likely to experience more frequent economic crises). Answer choice (B) does this perfectly by telling us that, where less information is available (what we know from the premises), economic crises become more frequent (the new element in the conclusion).
You are also correct in your response to Adam that there is no causation in this stimulus, so that we therefore cannot assume that unavailability of information is caused by control by a small elite. Yes, you are right that all we know from the stimulus is that a correlation exists: in countries in which the relevant information is controlled by a small elite, the majority is denied vital information.
So I would agree that you are almost entirely correct when you reason that, “just because we see the term government in the answer choice (assuming this means the small elite), . . . we can't automatically presume the information in that country is limited.” What you said therefore makes sense: that the “reason for saying that it is not true that limited information MUST follow from elite control” is that “we have only correlation not causation.”
But I would also expand on what you’ve said to include the fact that we cannot assume that “government” is synonymous with a small elite—since, e.g., an oligarchic government might consist of a small elite, but a democratic government might not necessarily be a small elite. I think it is important to see that, on the basis of what this stimulus tells us, it would be an unwarranted assumption to think that “government” is interchangeable with “small elite,” making (C) an irrelevant answer even if it were revised to speak of more frequent economic crises.
But perhaps a simpler way of looking at this is not to dwell on causal reasoning, since the stimulus never employs it, but to think about the conditional relationship the stimulus describes with respect to the second type of country discussed:
Relevant information controlled by small elite
majority denied vital informationFrom this we know that, whenever we see a small elite controlling the relevant information, we will also see the majority of the population denied vital information. This gives us no basis at all for concluding that in those countries, economic crises will be more frequent, since more frequent economic crises are a new element that never appear in the premises. So to prove the conclusion true, as we are asked to do, we need to link that new element back to something we know is true from the premises. What is important to see here is that, even if (C) were revised, as you suggested, to speak directly about the new element of “more frequent economic crises,” it still wouldn’t give us what we need because it doesn’t link that element to anything we actually know, since government control of information could presumably lead to greater access.
If it helps to think of this stimulus causally, however, I do think you’ve got it right when you say that “government control doesn't automatically equate to there being less information, because we do not know what actually causes there to be less information.” And you are definitely right to point out that the link we need here in order to make the conclusion follow logically is between “the ‘less information’ aspect of the stimulus and [the] ‘frequency of the crisis’” asserted in the conclusion. The only thing that worries me about your reasoning is that you seem to be mistakenly thinking that, in order to dismiss answer choice (C) as a loser, the predominant thing that we need is to be able to say that the relationship between elite control and denial of information is a correlation rather than causation.
In fact, what is important to justifying the conclusion in this stimulus is exactly what you pinpointed above: closing the gap between denial of information to the majority and the likelihood of more frequent economic crises. Without that missing piece, even establishing a causal link between small elite control (or even government control) of information and reduced availability of information wouldn’t get us where we need to go, which is for the premises plus the answer choice to prove the conclusion true. I could be absolutely certain that government control of information will cause reduced availability of information; but I still wouldn’t know whether this would mean more frequent economic crises, so the conclusion would remain unproven.
Or, to return to your question from above:
However, what if it said in the stimulus that limited information MUST follow from elite control or government (as in elite control is the cause of the info being withheld) and that small elite= gov't control, and that the term common can equate to being more frequent. Would C in that event be correct?even if the stimulus told us these new things, (C) still wouldn’t completely jump the gap between premises and conclusion unless you also made the other revision from “common” to “more frequent.”
I hope this helps!
Laura
