#17 - The radio station claims that its new format

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, oli_oops! Your prephrase was a little too specific, perhaps, and you boxed yourself in by relying too heavily on HOW the answer would present the method of reasoning, rather than on just looking to see that it did, in fact, describe what went on in the stimulus. On review this time, you got it exactly right. Well done!

[StanleyMK]

Hi, PowerScore folks.

I understand why B is the credited response. However, I still think that it's wrong.

Why? I believe it has a wording issue.

I specifically take issue with the first use of the word "inference" in B. While it is true that the argument proceeds by "referring to an" analogous scenario "that is clearly flawed in order to undermine an analogous inference," there is no explicit inference that the author mentions in his or her political candidate analogy.

As I understand it, an inference is a conclusion of sorts. It is a deduction that you can arrive at using evidence. The radio station's claim that "its new format is popular" is clearly the second inference that B refers to, which was arrived at using the station's (flawed) survey.

With that definition of an inference in mind, I do not see how B can possibly be correct unless test takers are to assume that the inference derived from the political candidate analogy is implied.

So, is my definition of "inference" wrong, or is the first use of the word "inference" in B an oversight by the test makers?

Thank you, all.

I couldn't let this one go. I need closure.

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Stanley!

Your definition of inference looks good to me. But I wouldn't say the test-makers are wrong in their first use of "inference" in answer choice (B). The inference that they're referring to is the determination of a candidate's popularity. The author of the question is saying that just as inferring a candidate's popularity from interviewing a biased sample is wrong, so too is inferring the popularity of the new radio format by polling callers. It's true that the author in his analogy doesn't spell out the details of the inference (e.g. is the candidate popular? unpopular?), but that doesn't really matter - any determination of candidate popularity is an inference (and a faulty one, according to our author). So the author does reference an inference in his analogy, even if he doesn't specifically qualify it. Hope that helps!

[spsa1000]

Hi! With B, is the "analogous inference" here the radio station's claim? I chose D for this one but appreciate that analogies are not counterexamples.

I'm not quite sure about B because I thought the analogy in the stimulus was the political candidate's popularity... but the author isn't trying to undermine that analogy- it's clearly flawed.

So for B to pass the fact test, the argument proceeds by "referring to an inference that is clearly flawed" (i.e., refers to the political candidate's popularity among those people who have already decided to vote for that candidate) in order to undermine an analogous inference (the radio station's claim is hardly conclusive). So the answer choice switched where you'd expect to see the analogy reference?

[owen95]

I'm not quite sure about B because I thought the analogy in the stimulus was the political candidate's popularity... but the author isn't trying to undermine that analogy- it's clearly flawed.

That almost tripped me up about B too... I was thinking of the politician situation as analagy to the radio situation, so them referring to the radio station as an analogy felt off to me. I'm guessing that was intentional on the testmakers' part, but they expect us to know that analogies are two-way streets. If x is analogous to y then y is analogous to x. So there's no problem with switching up which one they call the analogy.

Also, another thing that is wrong with D (other than the 'counterexample' aspect) that I haven't seen mentioned here... D says "in order to show that the conclusion is false." But the stimulus argument never says that the conclusion is false, only that the data used to support it is "hardly conclusive." I.e., the author doesn't take a stance on whether or not the new format is popular; they only have a problem with how the radio station came to their conclusion, or their "inference."

[Robert Carroll]

spsa,

I think there's a confusion here. You're right that the author is not trying to undermine the analogy. In fact, the author is the one who uses the analogy! But answer choice (B) isn't saying that the author is undermining an analogy, but undermining an inference.

In the analogous case, the argument goes: "We interviewed this candidate supporters, and they support him. So this candidate is popular with voters." That's a bad argument. The author of this stimulus wants us to recognize two things:

1. That the argument is bad.

2. That the argument in the politician case is analogous to an argument that could be made in the radio station case.

The argument that can be made in the radio station case is as follows: "3/4 of listeners who call in to the radio like the format. So the format is popular with listeners in general." The author of this stimulus wants to show that that's a bad inference too. So the tactic is to show that a different argument involves a bad inference, show how that argument is analogous to the one at issue, and then conclude that the argument at issue involves the same bad inference.

It's the inferences that are undermined, not the analogy. Or, to be precise, the politician inference is presented as already flawed so that the radio station inference can be undermined.

owen,

You seem to be on the right track!

Robert Carroll

[oscartheglopez]

Hello, I can see how B is correct in that it is saying it is an inference to assume that both studies would give an accurate reading, however, my question is as to how A is wrong? Is it that A would fall under the umbrella that answer choice B creates? I got this one right on my timed run, but in my untimed return I switched to A.

[atierney]

Hi Oscar,

I think the idea is that it's the analogy rather an inference that's being used incorrectly. Inference are two separate concepts, and they should neither should be considered an umbrella with other. For example, you might consider certain varieties of rock music to fall under the general umbrella term of rock, but that's because of features common in those classifications that are shared by all classifications of rock music. (And yes, this is probably highly debatable!). An inference however is not the same as an analogy, nor in the same realm or class. I would advise reviewing analogies and inferences if you are confused. Also, let me know if you have any questions regarding any of this.

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - can anyone help explain the difference between analogy and inferences? Thanks!

Hi Oscar,

I think the idea is that it's the analogy rather an inference that's being used incorrectly. Inference are two separate concepts, and they should neither should be considered an umbrella with other. For example, you might consider certain varieties of rock music to fall under the general umbrella term of rock, but that's because of features common in those classifications that are shared by all classifications of rock music. (And yes, this is probably highly debatable!). An inference however is not the same as an analogy, nor in the same realm or class. I would advise reviewing analogies and inferences if you are confused. Also, let me know if you have any questions regarding any of this.

[atierney]

Hi Christine,

An inference is where you draw a conclusion on the basis of some information; given certain premises that can be put together, an inference is the drawing of a conclusion based on this drawing together. An analogy is where you compare two things, events, phenomena, etc. together, drawing upon the similarities inherent within each. I think if you understand what each term means, they are not inherently similar. I infer that one would not easily analogize the two!

Hope this clears things up, and let me know if you have any further questions.