#1 - Educational television is a contradiction in terms. Whi

[Nikki Siclunov]

It goes without saying that no technique - including the Assumption Negation technique - should be applied blindly to solving the question at hand. There is no substitute for understanding what an assumption actually is: a statement upon which the conclusion depends. While most statements whose logical opposites contradict the conclusion will qualify as assumptions, not all of them will: clearly, the opposite of the conclusion itself will contradict it, but the conclusion is not its own assumption. However, every assumption is a statement whose logical opposite contradicts the conclusion.

This is why it is important to isolate the contenders before applying the Negation technique. Answer choice (E) in the question you asked about should never have been a contender.

[quiz555]

So the negation technique is successful only when one has effectively dismissed the non-contenders? What if, like in my situation, I believe an answer choice is truly a contender? Am I subject to a non promising technique?

After employing the technique, it did exactly what it is supposed to do--contradict the conclusion...and since it succeeded at that, I chose that answer choice.

[Dave Killoran]

I'm going to jump in quickly---I haven't read the original question or stream of posts here--but I wanted to respond to your last post.

In reference to your question: "So the negation technique is successful only when one has effectively dismissed the non-contenders? " The answer is no. The technique, which is based on the definition of an Assumption, will work on any answer choice. If the answer choice is correct, when applied it will weaken the argument. If the answer is incorrect, when the technique is applied it will not weaken the argument.

That's all--I just wanted to clarify that point. Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Ahh, my curiosity got the better of me! I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I went and looked at the original question, and here are a few thoughts.

I can see why (E) attracted you initially. It seems to be in the right vein of thinking, but to me in this answer they play a sly game with the language. The conclusion in the argument is about "educational television" being a contradiction in terms. (E) addresses the potential of television as a learning tool. But, I think the test makers have set this up so that "educational television" and "learning tool" are two somewhat different ideas (and really, what our goal here is to figure out what the test makers are doing!).

When we negate (E), we get, "The potential of television as a powerful learning tool has been realized." If you see "educational television" and "learning tool" as identical, you can see why that would be a bothersome answer (I'll just leave it that the realized potential as a powerful learning tool happens to be great, for full clarity). But, what would the test makers say here? When faced with the negation of (E), I think they would say something along the lines of, "We didn't say television couldn't help people learn. For example, a news report helps them learn what the world news is, or that the weather in Europe was bad today. In those cases, people learn a great deal. But, our quibble isn't with that aspect but rather with the term 'educational television,' because that term implies a specific type of learning environment that we define in the premises. So, when you tell us that the learning potential of television has been realized, we say, 'Sure, sounds good, but we still think that 'educational television' is a contradiction." In effect, the negation of (E) does not cause the author to change his/her assessment of the idea of "educational television," which, as indicated in the premises, seems to be a somewhat defined term in his/her mind. It's definitely tricky, and they seem to be playing a game with how they've defined "educational."

Not sure if that helps. Please let me know. Thanks!

[quiz555]

Thank you Dave for helping out!

Hmm, yes I can see how the conclusion can evade such a negated statement. I guess being a learning tool isn't necessarily equal to being educational. I assumed the two were synonymous. I also assumed that making that assumption was warranted...

Bummer :|

I really appreciate Nikki's and your help!
Thank you guys!

[Dave Killoran]

Awesome, glad we could help!

[MeliXi]

why is choice B correct?
I used process of elimination to select B but didn't completely understand why that choice made sense.
I don't see how the Negation "Some experiences that do not closely resemble what takes place in the school environment can be educational" weakens the argument.
Some of these experiences that don't resemble school environments can be educational, but it doesn't have to mean that educational television is included in these experiences.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Meli,

This is a really good example of a Supporter Assumption question, where there is a term in the conclusion that hasn't been supported directly by any information in the premises. When the conclusion (the first sentence of the stimulus) refers to "educational" television, it's introducing a term that the premises haven't directly defined in any way. What does it mean for something to be "educational?" What are the criteria for calling a particular informational medium "educational?" The premises don't tell us, at least not explicitly. Instead, the author expects us to connect the dots in the argument. The author expects us to make the connection that, if something (like television) does not share the characteristics of a school or classroom, then that thing is not educational. That's the same connection answer choice B is making (though it states it in a "contrapositive" form: if something is educational, then it MUST closely resemble what happens in a school environment).

The reason the negated form of answer choice (B) attacks the argument is that it severs any connection between the premises and the conclusion. If there are experiences other than those taking place in a school setting that can be called educational, then the argument has provided literally no basis for the conclusion. There would be no reason to say (one way or the other) whether educational television is possible. Severing the link between the premises and the conclusion like that, while not directly denying what the conclusion says, destroys the argument as a whole. And if an answer does that when it's negated, that's something the argument must assume.

I hope this helps!

[mab9178]

Hi,

Is it correct to negate B as follows?

Experiences that do not closely resemble what takes place in a school environment can be educational.

Or

Some experiences can be educational even if they do not resemble what takes place in a school environment.

Thank You
Mazen

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Mazen!

Even though worded differently, either of those seem to be correct negations. They also convey the same material use different language from the administrator's negation:

Using the assumption negation technique, if some experiences that do not closely resemble what takes place in the school environment can be educational, the stimulus conclusion would be attacked.

Effectively, the core of the negation is that some experiences that don't resemble the school environment can still be educational. This is conveyed in both of your examples. Answer (B) is making a claim about "all"--all educational experiences resemble the classroom environment; one negates this with a rephrasing that indicates that "not all" educational experiences resemble the classroom (or using another rephrasing, "it is not the case that all educational experiences" resemble the classroom).