#20 - Recent medical and anthropological data show that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—SN. The correct answer choice is (A)

Despite the length of this stimulus, the argument is simple in structure. It also is deceptive, because while no explicit conditional indicator words are present, the conclusion is the result of an unstated conditional rule that the author assumes must be the case.

The stimulus author discusses recent medical and anthropological data showing that prohibitions on the use of certain foods served important social, economic and medical functions in ancient cultures.

It is not in dispute that the prohibitions served these functions. However, the author argues that those who originally imposed the prohibitions did not do so in order to produce the social, economic and medical functions.

The author’s only support for this conclusion is the evidence that those who originally adopted and enforced the prohibitions did not have access to the same data as modern researchers. So, for the conclusion to be valid, it must be the necessary implication of this evidence. In other words, for the conclusion to be valid, it must be the case that the following conditional relationship exists: if certain medical and anthropological data was not available to the people who originally adopted and enforced prohibitions on the use of certain foods, then that medical and anthropological data cannot explain the origin of the prohibitions.

This relationship can be diagrammed as:

data access = access to medical and anthropological data showing that prohibitions on the use of certain foods served important social, economic and medical functions

data explain = data can explain the origin of the prohibitions involved

• data access data explain

Put together, the argument contained in the stimulus, including the assumption, is:

• Premise: recent medical and anthropological data show that prohibitions on the use of certain foods served important social, economic, and medical functions in ancient cultures
  
  Premise: but, those who originally adopted and enforced the prohibitions did not have access to the same
  modern data as modern researchers (i.e., data access)
  
  Assumption: data access data explain
  
  Conclusion: the data cannot explain the origin of the prohibitions involved (i.e., data explain)

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice presents a restatement of the conditional relationship described above, providing that if the origin of a food prohibition is to be explained, then it must be explained in the context of understanding or knowledge, possessed by the people who originally adopted and enforced the prohibition. This restatement is the contrapositive of the assumption identified above, and so is logically identical to it:

• data explain data access

Answer choice (B): The word “contradictory” in this answer choice plays on the statement in the stimulus that the recent data cannot explain the origin of the food prohibitions involved. The phrase “cannot explain” implies the data is contradictory to the prohibitions. However, not only does this reflect an improper reading of the stimulus, it also would be an improper reading of the answer choice as a whole, which refers to food prohibitions that are contradictory with each other, rather than data contradicting information regarding the origin of food prohibitions.

Answer choice (C): This information is irrelevant to the conclusion, which did not deal with what leads to the origin of the prohibitions, but rather with what information may be used to explain those origins.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect, because the issue is not whether the original purpose of the food prohibitions was forgotten, but rather what information may be used to explain the origin of the food prohibitions.

Answer choice (E): It is not required for the conclusion that the people who originally adopted and enforced food prohibitions in ancient cultures generally had a nontechnical understanding of the medical functions of the prohibitions. The support provided for the conclusion had to do with the lack of access to data, rather than the ability to understand data.

[JocelynL]

Here is another one where I didn't see the conditional relationship present to diagram. Would it have been a cue where the premise said "cannot explain" that this isn't causal and as a result should be diagrammed as conditional? Sorry for these "dumb" questions. I just can't see how I can properly identify these reasoning types for future questions. Please let me know what I'm missing.

thank you so much,

(Oct 2013 Q 20)

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Jocelyn!

Seeing the conditional reasoning in this one is very tricky so no reason to feel bad about missing it!

One thing I want to make sure is clear--not every argument involves either causal or conditional reasoning. So just because there isn't causal reasoning present, doesn't necessarily mean that there is conditional reasoning present.

Basically every argument contains the implicit assumption that the premises are sufficient to prove the conclusion. So that's where the conditional reasoning comes into play here. The author is saying that the premise that those who originally adopted and enforced them did not have access to the same data as modern researchers is sufficient to prove the conclusion that the data cannot explain the origin of the prohibitions involved. The author hasn't explicitly used a conditional statement to tie the premise to the conclusion, which is why we don't see any conditional indicators. But the unstated assumption that the premise is enough to prove the conclusion is a conditional one.

In a way, all authors assume that their premises are sufficient to prove their conclusion. But that doesn't mean that we always approach these arguments from a conditional standpoint. The reason that we need to use conditional reasoning with this question is that the answer choice gives us the contrapositive of the link between the premises and the conclusion. Always look for gaps between the premises and the conclusion and remember that the author assumes that their conclusion follows from the premises and think about what you need to connect those premises to that conclusion.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[pmuffley]

I got this one right using the assumption negation technique! Totally worked.

For E, can someone please tell me what that assumption negation would look like though for clarity please?

[Robert Carroll]

pmuffley,

The negation of answer choice (E) should be as follows:

"The people who originally adopted and enforced food prohibitions in ancient cultures did not generally have a nontechnical understanding of the medical functions of those prohibitions."

Robert Carroll

[pmuffley]

thanks!

pmuffley