#21 - The proper way to plan a scientific project is first

[deck1134]

I chose answer D because I thought that the answer did contradict itself.

My recap of the passage was:

A project neeeds a goal and a plan to accomplish it. The ISS had a goal, then the war ended, they it got a new goal and has experiments. Therefore it should not be built.

I thought that the addition of the second goal (post cold-war) made it so there was a contradiction, namely that it had a goal, and yet the author still was attacking it.

Is there another way to think about this?

[James Finch]

Hi Deck,

The issue I saw when reading through the stimulus was that while the space station clearly no longer fit the "proper" way to conduct a project, because its original goal had disappeared, and a new goal attached, the scope of the conclusion is very strong ("Abundantly clear" that it shouldn't be built). So the question that should immediately arise is whether the stimulus presented enough evidence to support such a strong conclusion: could there still be a reason(s) for building the space station? Or did the stimulus decisively prove that it shouldn't be built?

Clearly there isn't enough evidence given to support the conclusion. With that in mind, we have to look for an answer choice that reflects that lack of evidence for the conclusion. This answer choice may be stated abstractly (as the correct answer, (E), is) or more concretely, but it will ultimately mean that conclusion didn't have enough premises to back it up. Looking at the answer choices:

(A): Describes an ad hominem/source flaw, not our flaw. Loser.

(B): Describes a tautology/circular reasoning, not our flaw. Loser.

(C): Describes a factual error that isn't present in the stimulus (the stimulus doesn't take issue with the space station planners failing to foresee the end of the Cold War). Loser.

(D): Describes a self-contradiction, which isn't present in the stimulus. Loser.

(E): Describes the missing link between the evidence given as premises in the stimulus and its conclusion, namely that just because there is a flaw with a plan doesn't automatically mean that flaw means that a plan shouldn't be put into action. Contender.

So by process of elimination we see that (E) is the correct answer choice.

Hope this helps!

[cmorris32]

Hi PowerScore!

I have a similar question to the one above, regarding the self-contradiction described in answer choice D. I was stuck between D and E, and I do not understand why there is no self-contradiction in this argument.

The self-contradiction I was thinking about was, in the first sentence it says the second step to planning a scientific project is to plan the "best way to accomplish that goal." Then, later in the stimulus, I interpreted it to say that because there is an alternative way to accomplishing the limited-gravity experiments, the station should not be built. If one has to determine the best way to accomplish a goal, wouldn't there always be alternative ways to accomplish that goal?

It feels like I may be over-complicating the stimulus, but I would appreciate any clarification on this!

Thank you!
Caroline

[Adam Tyson]

A self-contradiction, or internal contradiction, is when the author makes two claims that cannot both be true at the same time. They are logically inconsistent with each other. That would be like the author saying "X is the best way, but instead of that we did Y, which was the best way."

There is no such contradiction here. All of the premises can be true at the same time, and the conclusion could even be true. The problem is not that any of these claims contradict each other, but that the premises do not adequately support the conclusion. Just because this may not be the best way doesn't mean we shouldn't do it!

[grunerlokka]

In the initial explanation of the correct answer to this question, the Administrator states the following about Answer B (which is wrong, and the answer that I had chosen): "The argument here is not circular. The argument sets out a clear principle and tries unsuccessfully to meet it".
I see now why E is a better answer. But lets suppose the question stimuli does set out a clear principle and then successfully meets it, as evidenced in a more appropriate conclusion. How would the argument not be circular then, that is, if it states a "clear principle" in the first (premise) sentence, and then offers a conclusion which is arguably a context-specific reiteration of this first-premise-principle sentence? Is circularity in an argument wrong ONLY when it is clearly flawed? I am trying to grapple with when exactly "circular reasoning" is wrong, what exactly it is. Thanks.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi gruner,

The administrator post didn't mean to suggest that an argument structured in a more successful way than our current argument would necessarily be circular. It's just giving a (pithy) description of the argument that shows it doesn't fit the description or definition of circular reasoning (which is "assuming your conclusion," or "restating a premise as a conclusion").

The argument you've described is not one I would call circular either, because a principle is just a general rule, and if it's given (and assumed true), then utilizing that principle to draw conclusions about scenarios that match the principle isn't just "restating the premise in the conclusion" (which is really what circularity comes down to). It's applying the rule to a situation it was meant for.

True circularity involves repetition (or near-repetition) of a premise in the conclusion. If you don't find a very close repeat of a premise in the conclusion of the argument, there's no circularity there!

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[caseyh123]

Can you please explain again why the fact that the experiments could be done in an alternative way is a shortcoming? no where in the argument does it say that that the alternative way is better.

[Frank Peter]

Hi Casey,

I would say that the shortcoming here is the fact that the space station would no longer be performing its original purpose and the author concludes that because of this shortcoming (and the fact that there is an alternative way to perform these experiments), the space station should not be built. But just as you said, we don't necessarily know that the alternative way of performing the experiments might be better; perhaps the experiments might get better results on the space station. The fact that there is an alternative way to perform the experiments is additional evidence the author uses to justify the conclusion, but I would say the "shortcoming" here (for purposes of answer choice (E)) is that building the space station would violate the author's principle that a scientific project should be suited to its goal.

[d.bertaux.97@gmail.com]

Hi there, I'm still a bit confused about this question after reading the discussions on this thread. I understand the reasoning around the fact that the experiment can be done in other ways doesn't violate the principle in of itself since we don't know if they are superior. However, the part I'm struggling to comprehend fully is what I read to be the first part of the principle, "first to decide its goal." The stimulus clearly communicates that the project deviated from its originally decided goal. At first glance, taking this into consideration, in tandem with direct language that "does not conform to this ideal" I had the though that it's clear the principle has been violated. Is this incorrect thinking on my part because we need evidence that shows that both parts of the principle A) decide its goal and B) plan the best way to accomplish that goal are present? And is it also the case that we lack clarity on whether deviating from the decided goal alone is not necessarily a violation of part A of the principle?

If this is correct, I guess it's clear that whether we're looking at part A or part B, it's still unclear whether the principle's been violated and even lacking clarity on part A might be insignificant since one by itself alone (i.e. not knowing if the alternative ways the experiment can be completed are suprior) indicates that we don't know if the principle has been violated.

Thanks for the patience with this long brain-spew

[Jeff Wren]

Hi d.bertaux,

The principle states that the proper way to plan a scientific project is to "first decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal." Let's imagine (for the sake of argument) that the U.S. came up with a goal (whatever it is, perhaps spying on the Soviet Union since it was during the Cold War) and decided that the space station would be the best way to accomplish that goal. If so, then they didn't violate the principle at that point.

Then the Cold War ends, and the original goal is no longer relevant. The principle doesn't mention anything about carrying out the plan or what to do if the goal disappears or changes. The U.S. then decides to use the space station for a different goal, namely to conduct limited-gravity experiments. Now you might think that this is a violation of the principle, but not necessarily. If (and this is a big "if") the U.S. came up with the new goal and then decided that the best way to accomplish it was the space station, then it would still arguably be following the principle. Remember the space station hasn't been built yet, so as long as the space station is the best way to conduct these experiments, the principle has not been violated. Even though there were two different goals, each one independently gives a good reason for building the space station according to the principle.

Now, on the other hand, if we knew for sure that the space station was not the best way to conduct the experiments, then the principle would have been violated. That is what Answer E is getting at with the shortcoming that isn't necessarily fatal.