#10 - Interviewer: You have shown that biofeedback, dietary

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Leni,

From a conditional perspective, you're right that what you've outlined is airtight! But here's the problem: we don't know that the conditional relationship the therapist asserts (Rigorous Adherence to Treatment Curable) is actually true as a matter of fact. As the interviewer says, that conditional relationship is merely something the therapist "claims" to be true. A contrapositive relationship cannot be inferred until we know (or accept) that the original relationship holds true. So the mistake (as answer choice A points out) is that the interviewer has, without any evidence, rejected the possibility of any disconfirming evidence (i.e. has simply asserted conclusorily that there isn't any possibility of someone rigorously adhering to proper treatment but not being cured).

This plays with an important distinction that sometimes trips students up: many of the conditional relationships we deal with in logical reasoning are thrown at us in contexts asking us to assume their truth (for example, a conditional statement in a Must Be True stimulus, where we're told to accept the truth of the statements in the stimulus). In an argumentative context, we're not required to accept the truth of a "claimed" conditional relationship. And if a conclusion depends on such truth without providing evidence for that truth, that conclusion is in trouble.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[lenihil]

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for your prompt reply!
I think I’m getting to understand it. And can I think it in this way?

Therapist: Rigorous adherence -> Curable
Interviewer: Sometimes not curable (even if we have rigorous adherence)
(So that means: sometimes Rigorous adherence -> ~Curable) (So Therapist you are wrong. What you claimed is not true. Sometimes Sufficient condition doesn’t guarantee necessary condition in your case)
Therapist: If you get ~Curable, that just means you fail Rigorous adherence in the first place.

In order to prove the therapist is wrong, we must show sometimes Sufficient-> ~Necessary just as the Interviewer did. But the therapist just says “you failed the sufficient!” In this way, the therapist precludes the possibility of proving he is wrong.

[Adam Tyson]

I think there is a little danger in that approach, lenihil, because the goal of a Flaw answer is not to prove the author of the argument is wrong. That's putting too much pressure on the answer! All we need the correct answer to do is to describe what mistake the author made. I would simplify this argument this way:

Therapist claims that X is true.
Interviewer says it appears that X may not be true.
Therapist says nope, you're wrong, because I'm right.

The Therapist offers no additional evidence to support the claim or to refute the opposing claim. Their whole argument at that point is just "no, you're wrong, because I'm right." That is the essence of circular reasoning. The Therapist isn't giving any room for the possibility that there might be evidence against his position, and isn't dealing with that evidence.

Don't look to disprove anything, but just to describe the problem! That should make your Flaw questions a bit easier, especially when the answers appear a little weak, as most "fails to consider" answers can appear.

[lenihil]

I think there is a little danger in that approach, lenihil, because the goal of a Flaw answer is not to prove the author of the argument is wrong. That's putting too much pressure on the answer! All we need the correct answer to do is to describe what mistake the author made. I would simplify this argument this way:

Therapist claims that X is true.
Interviewer says it appears that X may not be true.
Therapist says nope, you're wrong, because I'm right.

The Therapist offers no additional evidence to support the claim or to refute the opposing claim. Their whole argument at that point is just "no, you're wrong, because I'm right." That is the essence of circular reasoning. The Therapist isn't giving any room for the possibility that there might be evidence against his position, and isn't dealing with that evidence.

Don't look to disprove anything, but just to describe the problem! That should make your Flaw questions a bit easier, especially when the answers appear a little weak, as most "fails to consider" answers can appear.

Thank you Adam! It took some time for me to think it through.
Circular reasoning was never easy.
Again, thank you for your help.

[JocelynL]

Hi Leni,

From a conditional perspective, you're right that what you've outlined is airtight! But here's the problem: we don't know that the conditional relationship the therapist asserts (Rigorous Adherence to Treatment Curable) is actually true as a matter of fact. As the interviewer says, that conditional relationship is merely something the therapist "claims" to be true. A contrapositive relationship cannot be inferred until we know (or accept) that the original relationship holds true. So the mistake (as answer choice A points out) is that the interviewer has, without any evidence, rejected the possibility of any disconfirming evidence (i.e. has simply asserted conclusorily that there isn't any possibility of someone rigorously adhering to proper treatment but not being cured).

This plays with an important distinction that sometimes trips students up: many of the conditional relationships we deal with in logical reasoning are thrown at us in contexts asking us to assume their truth (for example, a conditional statement in a Must Be True stimulus, where we're told to accept the truth of the statements in the stimulus). In an argumentative context, we're not required to accept the truth of a "claimed" conditional relationship. And if a conclusion depends on such truth without providing evidence for that truth, that conclusion is in trouble.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

This is mind blowing! I was struggling with this question because I was taking all of these conditional statements as true (thinking we're not to argue with the premises) but the therapists statements is the conclusion, with no premise (and therefore no evidence) ?

So if these conditional statements appear in argumentative context (meaning when we see two speakers presented?) we don't accept them as true unless there is evidence (or premises) to support these claims?

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, JocelynL! When a conditional statement is given in a premise, we generally accept it, and we focus on whether and to what extent it supports a conclusion. But when it is presented as a conclusion, we are free to challenge it, especially if there were no premises to support it!