#14 - Eighteenth-century moralist: You should never make an

[Adam Tyson]

Many LR stimuli will contain both conditional and causal claims, Bebe, and in fact many causal conclusions are based solely on conditional premises, but it is not necessarily the combining of the two that makes the argument flawed. The flaw is almost always in that there could be other causes, or that the cause and effect could be reversed, or that there is a problem with the data, etc.

But it also could be the flaw, and a good answer might say something like "presumes that because one phenomenon is sufficient to prove the occurrence of a second that the first must cause the second." That's just another way of saying that correlation doesn't prove causation!

[queenbee]

Hi
I could really use some help with this one. I was torn between B and E. I chose B because it specifically references "expensive tastes" which was discussed in the stimulus. I ruled out E because it said "rejects achieving a goal". I interpreted this as a goal of any kind...because of the cost of achieving it. To me that was way too broad. I didn't see developing expensive taste as a goal. I would have considered a goal to be going to acting school, trying to become a world class gymnast, investing in a studio with the hopes of becoming an artist. In those cases, there may be a significant cost where the probability of success is small. I am repeatedly finding myself picking answers with more specific references to the stimulus because I am trying to be as critical as I can. in these cases the broad generalizations seem to win out. Any chance you can help me out with my flawed thought process?
Thank you!

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

There is no discussion of "financial irresponsibility" in the stimulus, though, so answer choice (B) is out.

"A goal" in answer choice (E) is acquiring expensive new tastes. That answer choice is not trying to say the stimulus is talking about achieving all goals, but instead it means just what it says - there is a specific goal. In fact, the answer choice says "achieving it", emphasizing that we are talking about one specific goal, not goals in general.

Robert Carroll

[kt2002]

is there a specific name for this type of flaw? I haven't seen a question where not including an argument's benefits was considered a flaw. Also, is this always a valid flaw type, or it's only valid given the context of this specific question?

Lastly, is there another question from a different practice test that I can look at that utilizes the same flaw type?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi kt,

As far as I'm aware, this flaw doesn't have a specific name.

It basically falls into the broader category of failing to consider all of the relevant information.

When making a decision or deciding whether or not to take a particular action in a logical/rational manner, one should consider both the possible advantages and disadvantages of that decision/action (along with the estimated likelihood of those advantages and disadvantages). Failing to consider either the pros or the cons when choosing whether to do something would be a flaw.

A similar flaw relates to mis-assessing the risk of certain activities. For example, many people believe that flying on commercial airlines is more dangerous than driving even though statistically this is not true.

While the concept of assessing risks vs. rewards (or costs vs. benefits) has appeared in a variety of LR questions, it has only appeared as the correct answer in flaw questions a few times.

Here are a few examples where this flaw did appear:

PT 12 Oct. 1994 Section 1 question 18

PT 39 Dec. 2002 Section 2 question 14

PT 65 Dec. 2011 Section 4 question 8

[rafletch97]

Hi - I think I understand what you are saying about "takes for granted" = assumption. However, in my read, the statement "takes for granted that expensive tastes will lead to financial irresponsibility" does seem like an unstated premise. Additionally, how is financial irresponsibility a stretch from "drain on your purse" - if you are draining your purse, is it not irresponsible? I understand that some can afford it but, in that case, it would not be a drain on their purse. Can someone help explain my error is reasoning here?

@lsacgals101

(B) is incorrect for two reasons, in my opinion. First, "takes for granted" means "assumes" - an an assumption is an unstated premise. So, if the answer points to something that the author did say, then it's not something the author "takes for granted." Here, as you've noted, the author did say "acquir[ing] expensive new tastes... are a drain on your purse." So, (B) is not an assumption! The takeaway is to watch out for answers in Flaw Qs that say the author "assumes" or "takes for granted" or "presumes without warrant" something she explicitly stated! These, though familiar, are dead wrong.

Second, I'm not entirely sure that you - @lsacgals101- should equate a "drain on your purse" with "financial irresponsibility." This looks like a Shell Game answer to me. While it may be true that a drain on your purse, in context, is a financial cost or liability, it's a bit of a stretch to say that this leads to your being irresponsible. (There are certainly very rich people, i.e. the Kardashians, who can afford the expense of acquiring these tastes, and we wouldn't accuse people who can afford these expenses of being irresponsible per se.)

[Jeff Wren]

Hi rafletch,

If you are equating "drain on your purse" as being identical to "financial irresponsibility," then this was explicitly stated in the argument and would not be taken for granted. The argument states that expensive new tastes are a drain on your purse.

Personally, I do not consider these two ideas equivalent.

The expression "a drain on your purse" means that "something uses more money than is reasonable, normal, or expected." This does not necessarily mean that it is financially irresponsible. I could state that my homeowner's insurance is a drain on my purse, but that doesn't mean that having homeowner's insurance is financially irresponsible.

Either way, Answer B is incorrect as neither interpretation describes the actual flaw in the argument, which is only focusing on the negatives/costs of an action without considering the positives/benefits, as described in Answer E.