#12 - Economist: Technology now changes so rapidly that workers need

[parytownson]

I figured that this was a Required Assumption question and that the correct answer was a supporter assumption answer, but I want to make sure I have the classification and diagramming correct:

Premise 1: If retraining of workers is efficient, then it allows companies to meet their own short term needs (RE SN). This is the second sentence of the stimulus and the premise of the argument.

Conclusion: If it is a large governmental training program, then retraining of workers is not effective (LGP ~RE). This is the last sentence of the stimulus and the conclusion of the argument.

I need to find a way to connect LGP to SN. Well, the contrapositive of premise 1 -- ~SN ~RE -- would allow me to connect LGP to RE by having the following premise: If there is a large governmental training program, then it does not allow companies to meet their short term needs. (LGP ~SN).

As such, the argument would go:

1a.) RE SN
1b.) Contrapositive: ~SN ~RE

2.) LGP ~SN

Conc: LGP ~RE

This missing premise is exactly what answer choice (D) says. And thus, it is the missing premise of the argument. As such, would this classify as a supporter answer as opposed to a defender answer?

Thanks in advance, Powerscore. Ya'll are really helping me nail down this test.

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi Pary! Great job on this question

You're correct that this is an Assumption question and that the correct answer choice for this question is a Supporter since it connects elements from the premise and conclusion.

However, I would diagram the logic a bit differently. The premise tells us that if retraining is efficient, then it allows individual companies to meet their short-term needs (diagrammed as: RE STN met). The conclusion then argues that certain programs (large governmental job retraining programs) don't retrain workers efficiently (or, according to our diagram, ~RE).

How can we conclude that a program doesn't retrain workers efficiently? Well, the contrapositive of the premise is that if short-term needs of the company are not met, then the retraining is not efficient (~STN met ~RE). So we can conclude that large governmental job retraining programs are not efficient if they do not allow companies to meet their short-term needs! We want to find an answer choice that provides us with this connection, which, as you correctly pointed out, answer choice (D) does. And since this answer choice closes a gap in the stimulus, you're correct that it's a Supporter!

The main difference between how you diagrammed this question and how I explained approaching it is that the last sentence of the stimulus isn't truly a conditional statement. Instead, the conclusion is stating that a sufficient condition doesn't happen, but to make that conclusion, we need to know that the necessary condition doesn't happen (which is what answer choice (D) tells us).

I hope this helps, and let me know if you have any further questions! Great work

[Cflores17]

The main difference between how you diagrammed this question and how I explained approaching it is that the last sentence of the stimulus isn't truly a conditional statement. Instead, the conclusion is stating that a sufficient condition doesn't happen, but to make that conclusion, we need to know that the necessary condition doesn't happen (which is what answer choice (D) tells us).

Powerscore this explanation is so confusing. Do you mind simplifying this explanation? Specifically why is Parys explantion wrong? To me it makes sence. Please provide clarity thanks.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Cflores,

What Beatrice is pointing out is that not every statement in a conditional argument is always a conditional statement, and ideally you should distinguish what is actually a conditional statement from what is simply a non-conditional statement of fact.

Here's a very simple conditional argument as an example.

Anyone who lives in Texas lives in the United States. John lives in Texas. Therefore, John lives in the United States.

Here, the only conditional statement is the first sentence, which we could diagram:

LT -> LUS

(for "if live Texas, then live in United States")

The next sentence, which states that John lives in Texas, is not conditional. It is not saying "if John, then live in Texas."

So rather than diagramming the second sentence:

J -> LT

(which would literally mean "if John, then live in Texas."

I'd diagram it:

LT(j)

Which is LT (for lives in Texas) with a (j) subscript for John. This is basically showing that John does in fact live in Texas and John has satisfied the sufficient condition (rather than just the possibility that John would satisfy the sufficient if he lived in Texas).

Similarly, the conclusion would be diagrammed:

LUS(j)

Which means that John does in fact live in the United States.

Beatrice's explanation follows a similar way of diagramming as in my example above but using the terms in the argument (and using the contrapositive).

Parytownson's explanation is generally correct, and her diagram would work to get the correct answer here. The only difference between Beatrice's explanation/diagram and Parytownson's is that Parytownson's diagram may be confusing/misleading in that it makes it look like every statement in the argument is conditional when that is not the case. In other situations, this difference between what is and is not stated as a conditional can be important in solving the questions, which is why it's worth noting.