#13 - Although most builders do not consider the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this stimulus, the author considers an experimental building material called “papercrete.” Those who work with papercrete, typically on small-scale projects, think it is a promising building material for large-scale construction. However, most builders disagree. Despite this disagreement, the stimulus author concludes papercrete is indeed promising for large-scale construction, finding the opinion of those who use papercrete regularly, and are therefore familiar with its properties, to be more persuasive.

But, there is a problem with this conclusion. The author gives preference to the opinion of those builders who regularly use the material, implying they are more familiar with its properties than “most” builders. However, the stimulus does not tell us how familiar most builders are with papercrete. It may be the case that “most” builders are just as familiar with papercrete as those who use the material regularly, and that their experience shows them it is not a promising material for large-scale construction.

The question stem tells us this is a Method of Reasoning—Flaw question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the assumption made by the author, that “most” builders are not familiar with papercrete.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice suggests the conclusion results from the notion that if the material is promising for small-scale construction, then it must be promising for large-scale construction. However, the argument does not make this logical leap. The evidence relied on for the conclusion was the opinion of those the argument presumed were most familiar with the properties of papercrete, not the fact that papercrete is used in small-scale projects, or may be promising for use in large-scale projects.

Answer choice (B): This choice refers to the logical flaw of an appeal to numbers. It is incorrect because the conclusion rejected the position of the majority of builders. Also, even if the conclusion did adopt the majority opinion, this answer choice would be incorrect, because the majority view is that papercrete is not a promising material for large-scale construction.

Answer choice (C): This choice refers to an ambiguity in the use of a material term. However, the use of the term “promising” in this stimulus did not vary.

Answer choice (D): Even if we assume that the builders who regularly use papercrete have more experience with it than “most” builders, this answer choice is incorrect. The author did consider the view of “most” builders, but then rejected that view.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The argument appears to assume, without justification, that a builder cannot be familiar with the properties of a material unless they use it regularly. Due to that bias, the author, without justification, gives preference to the opinion of those who regularly work with the material, even though they work with it primarily on small-scale projects and the question at issue was whether the material is promising for use in large-scale construction.

[kcho10]

Hi, thank you for your explanation, but I'm still a bit confused on this one....

Wouldn't the argument have to assume that, as (A) says, what is promising for small-scale production is the same as what is promising for large-scale production?

The stimulus is saying that those who regularly work with papercrete (small-scale projects) think it is promising and are familiar with it, papercrete must be promising for large-scale construction. But if large-scale and small-scale projects have different criteria for what is promising, wouldn't that weaken the argument?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi kcho10,

The conclusion is that papercrete is likely promising for large-scale construction. The support for this conclusion is that those familiar with its properties think it would be promising. Most builders don’t think papercrete would work for large-scale construction. But the people who regularly build it with—most of whom do it on small-scale projects—do think it would work for large-scale construction. And the author is willing to take their word for it.

Answer choice (A) is attractive, but ultimately incorrect. The small-scale users do indeed say they think it would work well for large-scale projects (they "think otherwise", i.e. their views are the direct opposite of most builders'). So, it's not the author who confuses what's promising for small-scale construction with what's promising for large-scale construction: the author relies on the opinion of small-scale builders, who believe that papercrete is promising for both types of projects.

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks,

[angelica_mp]

Hello,

I also originally chose A, and am trying to reason through why it would be incorrect. Is A incorrect because the stimulus never says that those who regularly work with papercrete think it's promising for small-scale construction, and are instead saying that they think it would be promising for large-scale construction but just happen to primarily work on small-scale projects? I hope this makes sense!

And my reasoning for E being correct would be: just because builders who use papercrete regularly and are familiar with it's properties, doesn't mean they are using it correctly which would discredit their conclusion that it would be promising for large-scale construction.

Thanks for the help!!
Angelica

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question Angelica! Here's how I like to approach Flaw questions after I have come up with a prephrase and found myself with more than one contender: I ask myself if the answer choice accurately describes what happened in the stimulus. After all, Flaw questions are in the same family as Must Be True questions, which means that they have to be based entirely on the facts given in the stimulus.

Answer choice A is describing an argument that is based on the idea that the author confuses two things, mixing them up somehow. Specifically, he somehow equates small scale and large scale construction. Did that happen in the stimulus? Did he say "well, it works on the small stuff, so of course it works on the large stuff because they are the same"? Not at all! His evidence for the conclusion wasn't based on confusion between those two ideas, but on the claim that the people who use it on small projects say that it should work on large ones.

Now to answer E: did the author fail to consider that most builders might be familiar with the material? You bet! He somehow jumped from talking about the people that use it to the concept of people being familiar with it. That means he assumed that the people using it are the only ones familiar with it, and that he failed to consider that others might also be familiar with it. That bad assumption is the heart of the argument. It's not about whether the people using it are doing so correctly - they might be, they might not be. Instead, it's about "they use it, so they are the ones familiar with it."

Be sure the answer you select is an accurate description of what happened in the stimulus. Not just what could be wrong, but what actually did go wrong! That's my way of double-checking these answers, as well as my answers to Method of Reasoning questions.

[TheKingLives]

Hi Nikki, just wanted to say that explanation cleared it up for me. Thanks! It's not the author that makes that logical leap, the author is just choosing to trust the opinion of some builders over others based on rate of use. Is that right?

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly right, TheKingLives. The author accepts the opinion of those who use it, assuming that they are the only ones familiar with it. They fail to consider that those who do NOT use might also be familiar with it. Use does not necessarily equate to familiarity!

[KwakuS]

Hello,

I think the part that's tricky for me are the inclusion of the phrases "small-scale projects" and "large-scale projects" in the premise and conclusion respectively. How do I keep these terms from distracting me? Or in other words, how do I separate the central logical flaw from the small and large scale project distinction?

Thanks,
Kwaku

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi KwakuS ,

The key is to abstract the argument before you look at the answer choices. Answer choices in a flaw question won't help you get to the right answer if you don't already know what you are looking for. Prephrasing is key to flaw questions.

Here, the key is that there is a difference of opinion. Most builders don't consider pc to be a good candidate for large scale projects, but those who work with it (on small scale projects) think it would be fine. The author sides with those that work with pc, saying clearly they know how it could be used because they use it.

However, that discounts the experience of "most" builders. Why would their determination that it wouldn't work be less reliable than the minority that determine it would? That's the flaw--it discounts the experience of those who choose not to use it. It's not about the large/small scale projects that's the flaw. It's ignoring the opinion of a majority of specialists in a field.

Hope that helps!

[mollylynch]

I am still very confused about the reasoning in this question. Can it follow logically like this...?

Those who use regularly use papercrete ---> familiar with the properties

Contrapositive:
Those who are not familiar with the properties ---> do not regularly use

Is this what they are trying to get at here?

Thank you!