#15 - If all works of art evoke intense feelings, and this

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning-SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

The conditional reasoning in this stimulus can be summarized as follows:

• Premise (1): Work of art Evoke Intense Feelings
  
  Premise (2): This sculpture .....Work of art
  
  Sub Conclusion: This sculpture Evoke Intense Feelings

BUT:

• Premise (3): This sculpture Evoke Intense Feelings
  
  ==============================================

• Conclusion: Either Premise (1) or Premise (2) is wrong

Answer choice (A): The third premise does not deny the validity of the subsidiary conclusion; instead, it negates the second premise. Had the argument observed that biology lab was not cancelled, and then concluded that either the biology lab is not a class, or that not all classes are cancelled, this would have been a good answer.

Answer choice (B): Use the Conclusion Test to eliminate this answer choice. We are looking for a conclusion that states "either A or B." Here the conclusion is in the form of "A and B." Virtually everything else about this answer choice matches the argument in the stimulus, which is why it is a commonly chosen decoy answer. Always make sure the conclusion test is satisfied in the correct answer.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The combination of the two first premises produces an additive inference stating, "beta-carotene is safe in large doses." The third premise denies this conclusion. As a result, either the first premise is not true ("not all vitamins are safe in large doses") or that the second premise is not ("beta-carotene is not a vitamin"). Since this line of reasoning is a perfect match of the argument contained in the stimulus, this answer choice is correct.

Answer choice (D): The conclusion test can be used to quickly eliminate this answer choice.

Answer choice (E): The premise test can be used to quickly eliminate this answer choice, because it does not contain two premises (A→ B and BC) that can be combined to produce an additive inference of the type A C.

[adlindsey]

For P3, shouldn't EIF be negated?

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for catching that typo, adlindsey! I've corrected it.

[acp25]

Hi!

I wanted to know why the first sentence does not create one conditional statement such as: WAEIF + SWA SEIF and instead created two conditional statements. I did not initially see two premises in that one sentence. Please advise. Thank you in advance.

[Eric Ockert]

Hi!

I think the keys here are twofold. First, "all works of art evoke intense feelings" is certainly a conditional rule in and of itself. This would be similar to "All dogs run swiftly" or "all politicians lie."

Secondly, the second clause in that first sentence repeats an element from that original rule, the idea of a "work of art." So the structure of this first sentence is essentially: "All A's are B's, and this sculpture is an A, so it follows that this sculpture is also a B."

This repetition, I think, truly is the key. It is very common to see conditional rules established, and then to see an author apply those rules to facts that match the rules.

Hope that helps!

[Mmjd12]

This was my diagrammming, would appreciate any feedback

work of art intense feeling

sculpture work of art intense feeling

subconclusion:

sculpture intense feeling

Conclusion:

sculpture work of art
or
sculpture intense feeling

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Mmjd,

My only concern with your diagramming is that it is not clear to me from your diagram which statements are conditional and which statements are not because you've diagrammed everything conditionally. Not every statement in the stimulus is conditional.

Also, the way that you diagrammed could lead to confusion: For example, you have

Sculpture -> work of art -> intense feeling

and

Sculpture -> not intense feeling

(Normally, when you have a sufficient that leads to logically opposite necessary conditions, this would indicate that the sufficient is impossible, meaning that it isn't a sculpture, but that is not correct.)

While the argument can be diagrammed as shown in the original explanation above (to show the conditional nested within the conditional), I actually prefer to simplify this diagram to:

Premise: AWAEIF + SWA -> SEIF

and the contrapositive would be:

(Not SEIF -> not AWAEIF or not SWA)

The second sentence of the argument is not conditional, it just a term and would be diagrammed:

Premise: Not SEIF

(Notice how this term triggers the contrapositive and allows the conclusion to be properly drawn.)

Then the conclusion is:

Conclusion: Not AWAEIF or not SWA