#25 - Substantial economic growth must be preceded by

[SGD2021]

Hello,

Does answer choice B (The argument attempts to establish the falsehood of a proposition by criticizing the reasoning of those who assert its truth) even describe a flaw? (it seems like even if an argument does that, it wouldnt be a flaw)

[Adam Tyson]

That is indeed a flaw, SGD2021, and we would probably call that a form of "improper use of evidence" flaw. We also sometimes call this a "some evidence" flaw - you have some evidence against my position, and you improperly treat that as being conclusive. It's fine to say "you made a bad argument, so I don't accept your conclusion," but it goes too far to say "you made a bad argument, therefore your conclusion must be false." Could someone make a terrible argument and still come to a correct conclusion? Sure, all the time! Here's an example:

The Carolina Panthers are cursed. They have some bad karma, and I think the makeup of the coaching staff or the players must have some troubling astrological conflicts that keeps them from working well together. So there's no way they will win the Super Bowl any time soon.

From a logical viewpoint, my evidence isn't all that great. But could it still be true that they won't win the big game for many years to come? As a longtime Panthers fan, it sure feels that way to me! And if you were to say "Adam, that's an awful argument. Karma and astrology have nothing to do with football! Therefore, the Panthers will, in fact, win the Super Bowl soon," you would be committing the same flaw described in that wrong answer. You would be claiming that my conclusion is false on the grounds that I used bad reasoning to support it.

Go Panthers!

[marissasalazar9899]

The answer I put down for this question was letter E, but the correct answer is D stating that the "the argument confuses a necessary condition for a phenomenon with a sufficient condition for that phenomenon". I am confused as to why, can I have further explanation as to why it's D and not E?

[Stephanie Oswalt]

The answer I put down for this question was letter E, but the correct answer is D stating that the "the argument confuses a necessary condition for a phenomenon with a sufficient condition for that phenomenon". I am confused as to why, can I have further explanation as to why it's D and not E?

Hi Marissa,

Thanks for the post. I have moved your post to the thread discussing this topic. Please review the above discussion, specifically two posts on this thread that discuss answer choice E:
viewtopic.php?p=46258#p46258
viewtopic.php?p=62955#p62955

Thanks!

[cd1010]

Hello -- I got the question correct and am reviewing this post to see if I had the right approach for crossing out answers. The explanation for E below confused me, specifically the sentence, "In the stimulus, certain conditions (technological innovations) sometimes bring about a certain phenomenon (economic growth)..".

But as per the other comments, I didn't think the first sentence was a causal sentence, but was instead conditional? Where is the "sometimes"? I thought E was wrong because the phrase in the AC: "ONLY SOMETIMES precede a certain phenomenon", does not match what we know from the stimulus, that these technological innovations MUST precede substantial econ growth. (emphasis mine)

lp1997,

Thanks for the question! (E) is certainly, in my opinion, the most tempting incorrect answer choice here. Let me try to point out the core issue with it.

Answer choice (E) reads: "The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that because certain conditions only sometimes precede a certain phenomenon, these conditions always bring about the phenomenon." The issue comes in the first part of the answer choice when it says "The author presumes...that because certain conditions only sometimes precede a certain phenomenon..." This misdescribes what is happening in the stimulus. In the stimulus, certain conditions (technological innovations) sometimes bring about a certain phenomenon (economic growth)...but "only sometimes" is different than "sometimes" (sometimes could include always, for example, while "only sometimes" could not). We don't know if these conditions "only sometimes" bring about certain events...for all we know, they could bring them about always (the author then goes on to presume that the conditions bring about certain events always - we don't know that either - we only know that we don't know if they sometimes or always bring them about). Because of the incorrect conflation of "sometimes" and "only sometimes," this answer is incorrect.

Hope that helps,
Alex

[Dana D]

Hey CD,

I understand your confusion on this one - the first sentence is a conditional one, but it's a little confusing because the necessary condition (technological innovations) have a time condition on them. The conditional relationship is

SEG (substantial economic growth) (P by TI) preceded by technological innovations

So whenever we see SEG, we know that it was preceded by TI, however because technological innovation is the necessary condition, we might sometimes see TI happen without seeing SEG. Remember, we can have a necessary condition without the sufficient condition present. This is not a cause and effect argument, which is what answer choice (E) describes.

In answer choice (E), the "certain conditions which sometimes precede a certain phenomenon" refers to the fact that sometimes technological innovations precedes SEG, but again TI do not cause SEG. Sometimes TI precedes other events and SEG doesn't happen - that's ok, because TI is the necessary condition. This isn't the flaw in this argument, because the author is not saying TI causes SEG.

Your reasoning is correct, so hopefully this helped explain answer choice (E) a little more.