#22 - The 1980s have been characterized as a period of

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Etsevdos,

As this one begins, "The 1980s have been characterized as a period of selfish individualism that threatens the cohesion of society. But this characterization is true of any time."

It seems to me that there's a conclusion but it's implicit, because the rest goes on to expand the "But this characterization is true of any time" claim. In other words, the implicit conclusion seems to be that the way the 1980s has been characterized is inaccurate. In the first sentence a claim is made, and the rest from "But this characterization..." onwards calls that claim into question. Since that's the conclusion this one is driving at, to answer your question, answer (A) is not a restatement of the conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[Blueballoon5%]

Hello! I also picked answer choice A. The reason I did is because, in my head, I thought, "So what if humans have always been selfish in the history of mankind. It doesn't change the fact that the 80s was a selfish period."

I made an analogy in my head when answering this question. For example, let's say that I am arguing that Sara from my class is a selfish person. However, someone else attacks my argument by saying that everyone in the class is selfish. I would then make the retort that, whether or not everyone is selfish, I am only making the argument that Sara is selfish and this argument doesn't change, whether the entire group is or is not selfish.

Where did my thinking go wrong (above). I hope you can help! Thanks!

[nmgee]

Hello. I have the same question as Blueballoon5% above. Could someone please clarify why that claim in (A) must actually be relevant to this argument if it is still true that the 1980s were a period of selfish individualism, regardless of whether its been a trend throughout history?

Thanks in advance.

[Jon Denning]

Hi nmgee (and others)!

I had a student email me with a follow up question on this problem about answer choice (A), and since I feel like my reply might help further clarify any confusion other readers may have I'm going to post that question and my response below.

Student question:

"For question #10, I understand why E is the correct answer, but I don't understand why A is wrong. I picked A, because I thought, "So what if humans have always been selfish in the history of mankind. It doesn't change the fact that the 80s was a selfish period." Can you please explain why E is a better answer choice than A?"

My answer:

"I can see why A got you based on your reading of it! However A is saying something slightly different than your interpretation, I’d wager: what A actually describes is a case where an author presents information/details that are truly inapplicable to the argument itself, where the facts given can be said to be legitimately beside the point. But in this argument the notion of selfishness is the entire point, so historical selfishness is potentially quite relevant to the author’s case. A genuinely irrelevant detail would be something like “but prior to the 80s people wore less spandex” (or whatever)...that has zero impact on the idea of whether or not that decade was a uniquely selfish period to the point that our social fabric was at risk.

Typically the way to spot irrelevant details isn’t based on whether you find them convincing, but rather whether they touch on the same subject matter as the conclusion presents. If so, then it’s hard to call them irrelevant. Unpersuasive perhaps, but at least on topic.

The real flaw in this question is the distinction between “selfish individualism” in the first sentence (something that threatens the cohesion of society, apparently) and the idea of “selfish” self-interest as a motivator in the rest of the stimulus. That changes the nature of the discussion in a fundamental way, moving it from one idea to another."

I hope that helps!

[dbrowning]

Hi,

The distinction between relevance and persuasion was helpful, but the distinction is still somewhat hazy for me. Suppose we grant answer E, that the author equivocates between "selfish individualism" and "selfishness". Doesn't that render A correct as well? If, in the argument, the author is actually talking about selfish individualism, which we granted is a different use of the term than selfishness, doesn't it follow that "the claim that selfishness has been present throughout history is not actually relevant to the argument"?

If the argument is actually about selfish individualism, a claim about selfishness certainly seems irrelevant.

[Adam Tyson]

As Jon said, dbrowning, claims about selfishness throughout history ARE relevant to the argument. If the author had used "selfish" in the same way throughout the argument, and had said that selfish individualism had characterized all of history, then an argument could be made that such selfishness does NOT threaten the cohesion of society, because society has managed to survive it throughout history. Selfishness is relevant, so A is incorrect.

The real problem here is that the selfishness in the premises is "selfish concern for the human species", which is clearly NOT "selfish individualism." A concern for your entire species is not the same as a concern focused solely on yourself! It's them difference between "me" and "us". Or, looking outward, selfish individualism is "screw you guys, I want mine", while selfish concern for the human species is "screw the whales, people come first".

[TSimmons]

The real problem here is that the selfishness in the premises is "selfish concern for the human species", which is clearly NOT "selfish individualism." A concern for your entire species is not the same as a concern focused solely on yourself! It's them difference between "me" and "us". Or, looking outward, selfish individualism is "screw you guys, I want mine", while selfish concern for the human species is "screw the whales, people come first".

The principle confusion for me, and I'm sure many others, was interpreting the ambiguous language of (E), namely "two different uses of the term 'selfish.'" Definitionally, selfish seems not to change - still meaning self-interested or self-centered - hence weakening the appeal of (E). Rather, what 'selfish' is modifying changes (i.e. "individualism" versus "concern for the human species"). In other words, 'selfish' does not change really, but the nature of what it describes does.

With this is mind, does 'use' in (E) refer to [1] what is being modified? Or is it [2] the entire phrase (selfish individualism vs selfish concern for the human species, i.e. individual vs collective)? Can we separate the two? Reading Adam's comment suggests the latter, in which case totally makes sense. Am I going in the right direction or am I getting lost in the weeds :~/

[Robert Carroll]

TSimmons,

But the term "selfish" does change in meaning - the "self" in "selfish individualism" is an individual person, whereas the "self" in "selfish concern" is the entire species. The referent of the "self" in "selfish" is completely different in the two cases. So, indeed, "selfish" itself is changing its referent.

That being said, I think that discussion obviates any concerns over "use", which is not a problem in answer choice (E).

Robert Carroll