#6 P.1-46

[jkim138]

The answer states that the argument is flawed because the policies does not necessarily cause the increase in unemployment rate. However, how I read the stimulus is that it "can" be attributed, so I thought it was a good argument. Could you please clarify why the argument is flawed? Do I have to regard the word "can" as something that is absolute than something possible? Thank you.

[BethRibet]

Hi Jkim,

The word "can" which you are quoting is from the conclusion of the argument. We don't treat conclusions as fact (as we would premises) -- rather they are interpretations based on the facts. The facts don't give us enough information to support the conclusion that the policies caused the unemployment increases, and that's why this argument is flawed.

Hope this clarifies!

Beth

[asalusti]

Hello,

I had another question regarding # 6. I was wondering why the 1st sentence of the stimulus was not considered to be a premise. Doesn't it help support the fact that unemployment rates significantly increased, and combined with the last sentence (considered as a premise) it it demonstrates a rise in unemployment rates.

If it is not a premise, what is it? And will ever be asked to identify what it is or asked to differentiate between the premise of the argument (last sentence) and whatever the first sentence is/or asked what the purpose of the first sentence is in the overall argument?

The same situation is in #7 as well, where the first sentence is not stated in the answer key as a premise, but seems to support the argument/needed in order to determine if conclusion is valid or invalid.

Thanks!
Alaina

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hello Alaina,

Thanks for the questions, and apologies for the belated response.

Re: Question #6, the first sentence merely describes a phenomenon: unemployment has gone up. The author seeks to explain the phenomenon by bringing up a possible cause (monetarist policies), and justifies this finding by noting that the two events coincide.

Is the first sentence a premise? In a way, yes - it's something the conclusion seeks to explain; without the first sentence, the conclusion wouldn't make much sense. However, the crux of the author's argument is to advance a particular cause for the stated effect. From that perspective, the first sentence supports this conclusion just as much as it would support any other conclusion that advances a competing explanation for the increase in unemployment. The main support for the conclusion can be found at the very end of the argument. So, in as much as the effect of a purported cause can be considered a de facto premise for a conclusion advancing such a cause, the first sentence would qualify as a premise. But it can also be seen as contextual information that provides the basis for the observations made elsewhere in the argument. We need the information in the first sentence, just like any explanation of a phenomenon needs the phenomenon to have occurred. The mere occurrence of that phenomenon, however, does not support the specific cause advanced in the conclusion.

Same thing with Question 7: Adam's claim about his running prowess is no longer credible, because there is now a tie between him and other members of his class. Does the fact that he maintained this claim for years qualify as a premise? I'm hesitant to say that it does: it's contextual information that does not directly support the conclusion. Clearly, we need that information to make sense of the conclusion, but it does not directly support it.

Let me know if this makes sense.

Thanks!