Argument Analysis Question

[mcwoodhill]

I have a problem with those stimuli that per se are just a mess: I mean they sometimes contain lots of reasonings that seem totally irrelevant or just redundant. Some e.g.:

PT39-S2-Q14

I break down the stimuli into this:

P: the proposal will have negative consequence

C: the legislator ought to reject it

I was pretty much confused with the popularity reasoning part. After thinking over and over, I realized it might be a counterargument: the bill is popular, then it requires an assumption that legislator should vote for a popular bill, then the argument dismissed the rejection by using an analogy.

Holy crap, even though this analysis could be true, it did take me tons of time to work it out.

And again, PT29-S1-Q14

I guess the first half of the statement is totally irrelevant because then the prosecutor went on to disprove it by saying we have conclusively shown

At that point I felt totally confused this denial makes Dr. Yuge’s testiment totally weirdly connected to the whole argument. Then the argument went on to invoke a Yuge’s acknowledgement.

The questions are not so difficult but analyzing the stimuli did drain up my time because the mess made the argument full of mistakes, at least to me.

So any quick way to break down those messy arguments? Big thanks in advance

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Mcwood,

In general, you should expect the arguments to contain flaws. The two questions you pointed to were a Flaw in the Reasoning and a Weaken question, respectively. In order to weaken an argument, the argument must not being logically valid, and of course to identify a flaw in an argument, there must be a flaw present.

Furthermore, you should be happy when you identify what part of the argument is flawed. One of your top priorities in reading the stimulus is to assess how valid the conclusion is. If you can tell yourself why a premise does not definitively prove what the speaker thinks it proves, then you will be able to exploit it if the question stem asks you to weaken the conclusion. You will be able to connect gaps in the argument if the question stem asks you to strengthen or justify the argument. You will be able to look for the same error if you are asked to parallel the flaw.

Getting to the flaw in the argument is an incredibly powerful tool in solving just about every logical reasoning question. My advice would be to not get upset when you come across more stimuli that are "a mess," but to be happy that the argument is so transparent in why it is flawed!

As for irrelevant information - yes, it is tiring sometimes. Part of what these questions are doing is testing you on your ability to distinguish premises that help the argument, from premises that don't. Must be True questions rely on this quite often. It is a skill that you need to work at. When you get better at analyzing the stimulus, picking out irrelevant information is great - it means that you might not have to worry about that statement to find an inference from the other statements that matter!


You can post any specific questions about test 39, section 2, number 14 on this page. I am not sure where you see an analogy drawn in this stimulus, but please post any questions you have to the paged in the link provided.

[mcwoodhill]

Hey, Francis, thank you so much and it helps a lot.

I'll be more focused on analyzing the stimuli in a way of more help to find the solution rather than totally breaking it down super clearly and succinct. I'm a diplomat so it's pretty much a force of habit we overhaul every single argument down to pieces like a deconstructionism critic.