#18- There is little plausibility to the claim that it is

[ronnieronnie]

Hey Guys,

So I am reviewing my last practice test, wrong and right answers, as per Nikki advice, and already I am finding I need the explanations for multiple problems. Can I find these online somewhere? Or should I just list them here and you guys can help me out? If I can find them online it would be great if you guys could tell me where. But just in case they aren't on here, here are the problems I re-picked wrong answers for or didn't quite understand:

#18- I fell for answer choice C twice, because I was not certain which was the conclusion. I thought however, was a counter-premise indicator in the stimulus, but its the conclusion??)

Thanks in advance guys!
Ronnie

[Nikki Siclunov]

Ronnie,

There are no explanations for the practice tests, but we'd be happy to discuss them on the forum.

Regarding #18, the word "however" is a counter-premise indicator, but it can also be used in a more general sense to indicate a counterargument: it all depends on the structure of the counterargument. Here, the last sentence supports the preceding one, as it explains why there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental. Therefore, the conclusion is the third sentence of the stimulus.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect for two separate reasons: First, having "little plausibility" is not quite the same as having "some" plausibility. If you think about it, they have almost opposite meanings. Do you see why? Second, the main conclusion is not the first sentence of the stimulus due to the presence of the counterargument as described above.

Hope this helps!

[stephaniemaui]

Hi, I am still confused with this question.

Can you please explain to me the difference between "there is little plausibility" and "there is some plausibility" ?

I am understanding that if there is little there exists some plausibility. But obviously this is not correct.

Your help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Stephanie,

First, just want to make sure that we're clear that the main conclusion is the third sentence in the stimulus. The argument is structured thus:

1. Author acknowledges validity to another point of view.
2. Premise backing up other point of view.
3. Main Conclusion: This is the author's point of view.
4. Premise backing up main conclusion.

The distinction between "some plausibility" and "little plausibility" concerns the first statement in the stimulus.

Let's discuss this concept with three hypothetical examples:

1. There is some plausibility that I am King of England.
2. There is a little plausibility that I am King of England.
3. There is little plausibility that I am King of England.

What does each of these statements imply?

1. This statement implies that there is some real chance that I am King of England.
2. This statement also implies that there is some real chance that I am King of England, but it is a small chance.
3. This statement implies that there is not much chance I am King of England. There could be a small chance, or there could be no chance.

Notice the difference between statements 2 and 3 above. In statement 2, there is definitely a chance. In statement 3, there could be a chance, or there might not be a chance.

This distinction also holds for the term "few," as in:

• Some people will come to my party. People are showing up.
• A few people will come to my party. At least someone is showing up.
• Few people will come to my party. Maybe someone will show up. Maybe no one will show up.

I hope this helps!

[stephaniemaui]

Jonathan,

Thank you very much for your hypotheticals and for providing a thorough explanation. I also appreciate you including the examples of "few". Thanks!

[BostonLawGuy]

The explanations regarding why the correct answer is the only correct answer are very helpful. However, It has not yet been established if there are indeed, two separate conclusions in this argument. (Only one of which is reproduced and credited in answer E.)

Premise: People must assess one another and not all assessments will be positive.
Conclusion 1: ThereforeThere is little plausibility to claim that it is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical. (emphasis mine)

Premise: To be judgmental is not merely to assess someone negatively, but to do so prior to making an effort to understand.
Conclusion 2: There is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.

My question: Perhaps what appears to be conclusion #1 in my evaluation, is really a sub-conclusion that gives some sort of support to the main conclusion (#2, which is the credited response)?

[Alex Bodaken]

BostonLawGuy,

Thanks for the question and the explanation - you are right that there are two conclusions in this stimulus, and they are the two you note. And you are right as well that only one of those one of those two conclusions is reproduced in answer E, making it the right answer. I also think you are right that your "conclusion #1" is a subconclusion - it is a statement intended to set up the main conclusion that "There is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental." Nice work!

Best,
Alex

[dlehr99]

I'm not in disagreement with the explanations provided on this question so far and I clearly see based on these answer choices why (E) is correct. My gut instinct also told me this was the true main conclusion, but from a technical standpoint I don't think I could explain it to someone or myself really.

Can someone touch again on this idea of however as a counter-premise indicator in this question. And I know we aren't supposed to make these hypotheticals, but if answer (C) had used "little" instead of "some" it seems like the answer would not be so clear cut based on the prior explanations. If it did use that "little" exact language - how would I go about discerning between the two?

Thanks as always!

[Adam Tyson]

A very good question, dlehr99! This is a strange argument, in my opinion, because the first conclusion we encounter really doesn't seem to support the main conclusion. Normally, intermediate conclusions give some support to main ones, so what's the deal here?

I think it helps to simplify this argument with a paraphrase. It's basically this:

"It's actually okay to criticize people for being critical, because sometimes we will think that's bad and needs to be called out, but it's not smart to go from there to judging them, because judging is based on not really trying to understand them."

The first part of this is an argument, but the reason it is not the main argument is that the author is just using it to establish some background for the real argument that comes at the end. He's saying "X is true, but don't go too far." The first part doesn't support the second part; the second part is true, the author says, despite the truth of the first part.

If we changed answer C the way you suggested in your hypothetical, it would correctly capture the first conclusion, but it still would not be the main one. The use of "however" (and I used "but" in my paraphrase to the same effect) indicates that the author is about to tell us something new that goes beyond or against what came before. When that happens, think of it a little like a journey, and the main conclusion is the destination, the place the author really wants to take us. While there may have been conclusions along the way, we left them behind on the way to the real destination, so they could not be the main conclusion.