#23 - To predict that a device will be invented, one must

[JSLSAT]

Yes, that helped. Great, thanks!

[persde]

Hello all. I saw the conditional reasoning as this:

Premise: Predict Invention Development of Detailed Concept
Premise: Invention Development of Detailed Concept
Conclusion: Predict Development of Concept Development of Detailed Concept; therefore, the definitions given mean this can never occur because one cannot predict what one has already invented.


Is my thinking correct here?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Correct, persde! The author is arguing that the definition of "predicting" an invention includes the definition of inventing it, so that "predicting an invention" is something of a self-contradiction. You got it!

[jessicamorehead]

Hi powerscore!! I got the right answer, but I eliminated C for a different reason. I thought that the first line (aka a conditional statement) could not be described as a "hypothesis" because conditional statements are considered 100% always true - if the sufficient happens, then the necessary must as well. Whereas for a hypothesis, it is just a guess to explain a phenomenon, which may or may not be true. Is my logic sound on this one?

[Adam Tyson]

Not quite, Jessica, but close! When we are presented with a conditional premise, as we are here, we accept that the author of that argument believes it to be absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that it actually is true. We can still call his claim a hypothesis, and treat it as being unproven if that's what the stem calls for us to do. On most questions we won't question the truth of the premises, as we might in a "real world" argument, but instead we focus on the link between those premises and the conclusion, if there is one, or we accept them as true and then determine what else must be true, what cannot be true, or what is most strongly supported by them if those are the questions we are being asked.

So, while it is a conditional claim, it is nonetheless still just this author's hypothesis, and we could have described it as such in an answer to this Method of Reasoning question. Maybe "showing that a hypothesis must be rejected for being internally inconsistent"?

I hope that helps clarify the distinction for you!

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powerscore,
Is E saying basically the same idea as B by implying that predicting is impossible? E is saying that predict = has taken place --> self-contradiction --> implies what B states "impossibility of a kind of occurrence." Why is E wrong?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi CJ12345:!

Answer choice (E) states that the stimulus attempts "to show that predicting any event implies that it has in fact already taken place."

This answer choice can be eliminated because of the "any event" phrasing. That language is too strong--the stimulus doesn't attempt to show that predicting "any event" implies that it has already taken place. Rather, the claim is much more limited than that--it is only about predicting an invention.