- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8929
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#23094
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning-SN. The correct answer choice is (A)
This is a challenging question with which to end this LR section. The stimulus opens by pointing out that environmental economics aims to address the problem that people cannot readily compare ecological costs and benefits with other costs and benefits. Next, the stimulus states that the solution must involve assigning monetary values to environmental factors. Third, and problematically (as indicated by "but" at the start of the third sentence), monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits to arrive at economic decisions. The stimulus then concludes that environmental economics is stymied (which means "frustrated" or "stopped") by what motivates it.
The dilemma is that making easy comparisons requires being able to assign monetary values, But, monetary values actually result from comparisons in the first place. Thus, we have a problem with a circular aspect: to have X happen you need Y to happen, but to have Y happen, you need X to happen. Don't confuse the circular aspect of the dilemma with a flawed circular argument—that's not what is happening here. A flawed circular argument basically assumes the conclusion is true (often via restatement of a premise or via an assumption of the argument that turns out to be identical to the conclusion). In this argument the author is describing a problem where two things basically require each other to happen, and in that situation, it's tough to get the whole process started. That's a tricky concept, so let's use an analogy to help make it clearer:
As an aside, is the situation impossible? No, there can be other ways around it. Using our job/outfit analogy, we could try borrowing an outfit, or taking a loan, etc. The stimulus doesn't address these points (nor does it have to), but it's worth considering when we reflect back on the question.
And, just to make sure the relationship in the stimulus is perfectly clear, here's another example analogy, drawn from one of the explanations above:
The question stem here is somewhat unusual. The stem begins by asserting that you should accept the statements in the passage as true, and thus this is a First Family question. Next, using the stimulus, you are asked to evaluate how well the premises support the conclusion (and each answer choice begins with a statement of the strength). This means you are evaluating how the reasoning was made and how well it works, and thus this is a Method of Reasoning question.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The conclusion was strong, so this answer choice looks promising. But, did our conclusion require the assumption that, "monetary values for environmental factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors" ? As noted earlier, assumptions are, by default, necessary for the conclusion of the argument to be logically valid. So, to see if this truly was an assumption of the argument, we can negate it, and if the negated version undermines the conclusion, then this would indeed be an assumption. Let's negate the assumption in answer choice (A) and examine the implication of that negation:
"Monetary values for environmental factors can be assigned even if people do NOT make decisions about these factors."
If that were true, then environmental economics would not necessarily be stymied by what it motivates it—monetary values could be determined, and then people could make economic decisions . Since the logical opposite of the assumption in answer choice (A) weakens the argument, it is indeed a necessary assumption for the conclusion to be logically valid, and answer choice (A) is correct.
Answer choice (B) The conclusion was supported strongly, so this answer choice also begins in promising fashion. However, the offered condition in this choice—which includes "the things categorized as environmental factors"—was not addressed in the stimulus, and so this response cannot be correct.
If this answer was still under consideration, note that since the answer itself is in conditional form, you could diagram it and then see if it applied:
Answer choice (C): The argumentation is strong, and thus this choice is incorrect. Furthermore, the question stem asks us to assume the premises are correct, and evaluate the conclusion. This answer choice might be interpreted as an attack on the premise that "people making economic decisions cannot readily compare economic factors..." Under that interpretation, this choice ignores the directive of the question stem. Otherwise, this answer choice can be seen as off-topic, because the stimulus was about allowing people to readily compare economic factors, not about whether they in general don't take account of the existence of factors.
Answer choice (D): The argument was strong, and so this response is also incorrect. Furthermore, this response indirectly suggests that there is data available with which we could begin to understand the value of economic factors. That would be in disagreement with the premises, and we were instructed to assume the premises were true.
Answer choice (E): Based on our discussion of the "circular" issue in the stimulus, you can see why this answer choice would be extremely attractive. Something that feels circular is happening, and this answer mentions "circular," and on that basis a large number of test takers selected this answer. But, as discussed above, the circular flaw described in this answer choice is very different than that in the stimulus. This answer choice thus represents a great example of an answer that someone chooses confidently and then later is surprised later to learn was incorrect. Always make sure that what you perceive to be occurring in the stimulus is matched exactly by the description in the answer choice!
Method of Reasoning-SN. The correct answer choice is (A)
This is a challenging question with which to end this LR section. The stimulus opens by pointing out that environmental economics aims to address the problem that people cannot readily compare ecological costs and benefits with other costs and benefits. Next, the stimulus states that the solution must involve assigning monetary values to environmental factors. Third, and problematically (as indicated by "but" at the start of the third sentence), monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits to arrive at economic decisions. The stimulus then concludes that environmental economics is stymied (which means "frustrated" or "stopped") by what motivates it.
The dilemma is that making easy comparisons requires being able to assign monetary values, But, monetary values actually result from comparisons in the first place. Thus, we have a problem with a circular aspect: to have X happen you need Y to happen, but to have Y happen, you need X to happen. Don't confuse the circular aspect of the dilemma with a flawed circular argument—that's not what is happening here. A flawed circular argument basically assumes the conclusion is true (often via restatement of a premise or via an assumption of the argument that turns out to be identical to the conclusion). In this argument the author is describing a problem where two things basically require each other to happen, and in that situation, it's tough to get the whole process started. That's a tricky concept, so let's use an analogy to help make it clearer:
- Let's say you are totally broke and want to get a well-paying job. To get this job, you need a nice outfit to wear, but you don't have one. And problematically, to get that nice outfit, you need a job so you have the funds to purchase it! So, there's an issue: you need a nice outfit to get the job, but to get the nice outfit you have to have a job to pay for the outfit.
As an aside, is the situation impossible? No, there can be other ways around it. Using our job/outfit analogy, we could try borrowing an outfit, or taking a loan, etc. The stimulus doesn't address these points (nor does it have to), but it's worth considering when we reflect back on the question.
And, just to make sure the relationship in the stimulus is perfectly clear, here's another example analogy, drawn from one of the explanations above:
- Let's say I wear glasses, and my vision is terrible without them. If I lose my glasses, I can't see. The solution would be to find my glasses and put them on, but I can't find them because I can't see.
The question stem here is somewhat unusual. The stem begins by asserting that you should accept the statements in the passage as true, and thus this is a First Family question. Next, using the stimulus, you are asked to evaluate how well the premises support the conclusion (and each answer choice begins with a statement of the strength). This means you are evaluating how the reasoning was made and how well it works, and thus this is a Method of Reasoning question.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The conclusion was strong, so this answer choice looks promising. But, did our conclusion require the assumption that, "monetary values for environmental factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors" ? As noted earlier, assumptions are, by default, necessary for the conclusion of the argument to be logically valid. So, to see if this truly was an assumption of the argument, we can negate it, and if the negated version undermines the conclusion, then this would indeed be an assumption. Let's negate the assumption in answer choice (A) and examine the implication of that negation:
"Monetary values for environmental factors can be assigned even if people do NOT make decisions about these factors."If that were true, then environmental economics would not necessarily be stymied by what it motivates it—monetary values could be determined, and then people could make economic decisions . Since the logical opposite of the assumption in answer choice (A) weakens the argument, it is indeed a necessary assumption for the conclusion to be logically valid, and answer choice (A) is correct.
Answer choice (B) The conclusion was supported strongly, so this answer choice also begins in promising fashion. However, the offered condition in this choice—which includes "the things categorized as environmental factors"—was not addressed in the stimulus, and so this response cannot be correct.
If this answer was still under consideration, note that since the answer itself is in conditional form, you could diagram it and then see if it applied:
- answer: Strongly
Decision making has affected categorization of factors
Contrapositive: Decision making has affected categorization of factors Strongly
Answer choice (C): The argumentation is strong, and thus this choice is incorrect. Furthermore, the question stem asks us to assume the premises are correct, and evaluate the conclusion. This answer choice might be interpreted as an attack on the premise that "people making economic decisions cannot readily compare economic factors..." Under that interpretation, this choice ignores the directive of the question stem. Otherwise, this answer choice can be seen as off-topic, because the stimulus was about allowing people to readily compare economic factors, not about whether they in general don't take account of the existence of factors.
Answer choice (D): The argument was strong, and so this response is also incorrect. Furthermore, this response indirectly suggests that there is data available with which we could begin to understand the value of economic factors. That would be in disagreement with the premises, and we were instructed to assume the premises were true.
Answer choice (E): Based on our discussion of the "circular" issue in the stimulus, you can see why this answer choice would be extremely attractive. Something that feels circular is happening, and this answer mentions "circular," and on that basis a large number of test takers selected this answer. But, as discussed above, the circular flaw described in this answer choice is very different than that in the stimulus. This answer choice thus represents a great example of an answer that someone chooses confidently and then later is surprised later to learn was incorrect. Always make sure that what you perceive to be occurring in the stimulus is matched exactly by the description in the answer choice!
) The problem can be rephrased as such:
) If I lose my glasses, I can't see. The solution would be to find my glasses and put them on, but I can't find them because I can't see. The problem is its own reason why the solution won't work.