#15 - Editorialist: Society is obliged to bestow the

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
As I mentioned before, this is another "equivocate" question. How can (C) fit into the stimulus? I just don't understand what does "equivocate" refer to here.
Thanks!

[Jon Denning]

Thanks for the question! What's being confused here is the word "mature," specifically as it relates to the idea of what it means to have reached "adulthood" (and thus get the privileges of it): is it being mature enough to accept the responsibilities of adulthood, or is it being physiologically mature in terms of development? One could be said to be behavioral/psychological maturity, while the other is purely physical maturity. Since maturity is discussed first as behavioral, and then later as physical, the author has equivocated with respect to its meaning.

[sherrilynm]

Can someone explain why D is incorrect? Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer D describes a flawed appeal to experts or to authority, sherrilynm, which is not the problem in this stimulus. That would be something along the lines of "some very smart scientists say something is true, so therefore it must be true". In this case, we never said something is true just because an expert or authority said it was. Instead, we said that science has established something. In other words, we aren't accepting it just because we think they are smart, but because they have done whatever else it is that scientists do to actually prove something. In other words, it's not "it's true because they say so", but is instead "it's true because they proved it". That's not a flaw at all!

No, the problem here is that we have used "mature" in two ways that are not compatible. Physical maturity and emotional or intellectual maturity are far from the same thing. Ask any parent!

[sherrilynm]

Thanks Adam! That makes things a lot clearer. So can we say that in general, if it says that science proved something, it is not relying on expert opinion?

[Adam Tyson]

Yes, I think that's a safe bet. "It has been proven by science" is not an appeal to experts. However, there could be an argument that has a conclusion like that which is based on such a flaw! That might look something like this:

"Renowned scientists have conducted several studies and experiments to test their theory. They claim that the results prove the theory is true.Therefore, the theory has been proven to be true."

This has a flawed appeal to experts/authority. Can we conclude that the theory is true, or are we saying it only because the "renowned scientists" say it is? I think the latter.

"It has been proven", when used as a premise, is typically accepted as a true statement, not a flawed argument. It's when you conclude that something has been proven that you have to be careful!

[queenbee]

Hi
I took equivocate as telling an untruth or avoiding to commit. I didnt see that happening in the premise. I guess I had a wrong interpretation of the word?
Thanks

[Luke Haqq]

Hi queenbee!

Your understanding of the word is in the right ballpark. Perhaps the simplest definition to stick with is that "equivocate" means "to leave ambiguous."

It's certainly possible that someone could leave a term ambiguous for the purposes of deception, to pull the fleece over someone else's eyes. In that case, a speaker might make an argument and then use a term or concept in two different ways, hoping that the listener won't pick up on the shift. It's also possible, though, that a person might make that shift in presenting an argument but does so without knowing it, doing so inadvertently rather than intentionally.

If it's a flaw question and you see the word "equivocate" in one of the answer choices, you can expect that the answer choice is indicating that a word or concept is shifting between different meanings in the stimulus. Thus your understanding of equivocate as "avoiding to commit" also captures the word, i.e., the speaker is avoiding committing to one meaning of a given word/concept and instead shifts between multiple meanings.

In this stimulus, the words "mature enough" are used in the first sentence to refer to being able to accept certain responsibilities of adulthood. This seems to be some sort of ethical or social maturity, that is, it's maturity defined in terms of abilities to accept expected obligations or responsibilities. The next two sentences, however, shift to discussing a physiological "maturing process." It's possible that people might be the first type of mature (able to accept responsibilities) before they are the second type of mature (physiologically developed). It's also possible that people might become the first type of mature only after they are the second type of mature. The fallacy in the stimulus occurs in its final sentence, which brings both of these meanings together without clearly separating or distinguishing them.