#13 - The dean of computing must be respected by the

[Brook Miscoski]

Blueballoon,

Your negation of answer choice (E) is correct and is the one that I would use. When applying the Assumption Negation Technique, your negation should simply disrupt the logical relationship expressed in the answer choice, a bit like a logical opposite. In this case, that is simply the possibility that other individuals understand computers. I wouldn't worry that much about this, but I would continue forming negations that are more like logical opposites.

[jwooon]

(A) - R → DD cannot generalize from a specific conditional (the one in the stimulus was about deans with doctoral degrees) and even if we could generalize, this would just be restating what has already been said in the stimulus
(B) - US → DD can’t make this assumption
DC → DCDD and KC and US
Therefore, the assumption cannot be made
(C) - DCDD → KC can’t make this assumption (don’t know the connection between DCDD and KC)
(D) - DCDD → R This is mistaken reversal

[jwooon]

Sorry, posted the wrong thing above

Are you supposed to not diagram these? It did take me a while to diagram, but without diagramming I was completely lost!

DC R and D
R DD (dean)
C KC
DC US

DC CSD

From here, you can make the general diagram that:
DC R and C and US
DC DD(dean) and KC and US

Assumption Prephrase: R and C and US CSD or in other words, DD(dean) and KC and US CSD

(A) R → DD cannot generalize from a specific conditional (the one in the stimulus was about deans with doctoral degrees) and even if we could generalize, this would just be restating what has already been said in the stimulus
(B) US → DD can’t make this assumption
- DC → DD(dean) and KC and US
- Therefore, the assumption cannot be made
(C) DD(dean) → KC can’t make this assumption (don’t know the connection between DD(dean) and KC)
(D) DD(dean) → R This is mistaken reversal
(E) US and DD, KC → CSD ⇒ US and DD and KC → CSD
- Referring back to the conditional from (B), DC → DCDD and KC and US if we combine that conditional with (E), then you make DC → DCDD and KC and US → CSD, therefore DC → CSD
- This is also the same as the prephrase

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi jwooon,

Yes, it would make a lot of sense to make the conditionals from the stimulus. Personally, I wouldn't draw out the conditionals in the answer choices unless I really couldn't see the relationships otherwise. For example, answer choice (A) I could quickly eliminate because I didn't need to know about who academics respect in general, just who they'd respect as dean of the computer science department. I didn't bother drawing out any answer choices that I could eliminate without drawing the relationship in the answer choice.

Hope that helps!

[charliehu]

I tried to use Mechanical approach so I looked for rouge elements in conclusion. But first thing jumped out for me is "Professor" rather than "from computer science department". That sadly led to me keeping only choice B and C as contender since they mention "Professor", but applying Negation technique both rule them out. At that moment it felt terrible.
I suppose it is an implicit assumption that University staff who holds Doctoral degree are Professor?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Charlie,

The assumption isn't that "University staff who holds Doctoral degree are Professor," but rather that:

Only professors from this university's computer science department satisfy all of the criteria for the job.

Answer E gets at this assumption by stating that no other staff members outside the computer science department satisfy the criterion about really knowing about computers.

Using the Assumption Negation Technique on Answer E, we'd get "Among the university's staff members with doctorate degrees, there are members outside of the computer science department that really know about computers." This would directly attack the conclusion that the dean must come from the computer science department.