Powerscore Page 231 Modern navigation

[voodoochild]

Why is it that the book says the argument is causal? I don't see any causal indicators. Any help? The conclusion says that the aircraft navigation is being put at risk by the electronic devices. How can we say that this is a causal claim? How can electronic devices cause something? I am not sure....Can you please help?

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Voodoo,

The books says the argument is causal because, well, it is causal

Before addressing why that is the case, let me first note that indicator words aren't necessary to indicate the presence of causality. There are numerous ways to get across an idea such as causality (or conditionality), and the lists of indicator words we provide cover the words most often used by the test makers. But, I also stress in the books that you have to really understand the core idea because there won't always be indicator words present. This same concept applies all over the test. For example, conclusions. They often come with indicator words, but not always. Indicator words are a great start and get you a lot of knowledge and understanding quickly. But you need to know the concept well also.

That said, in this argument, consider the conclusion (which is conveniently prefaced by the conclusion indicator "clearly" ). It basically says that modern navigation systems are being put at risk by the electronic devices carried by passengers. Think about that for a second, especially in the context of the premise about problems that occurred when a passenger turned on a laptop. The words and statements of the author clearly indicate that there is a belief that these electronic devices affect the circuitry, which in turn creates greater risk. That chain of events is causal.

You ask how electronic devices can cause something. I'm sure you understand that concept in general, but the idea here is that, for example, a passenger turns on a laptop, which produces various electronic signals. These signals then disrupt the circuitry or signals of the aircraft electronics, causing problems like dials dimming and navigation problems (this is a real-world problem by the way; it's why they make you turn your electronics off when a plane takes off and lands).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[avengingangel]

Thanks for that great explanation, Dave. I actually got this one correct, woo! I do have 2 questions about it still, though.

1)
I understood the argument's causal relationship to be electronic devices modern aircraft nav. systems being put at risk (as the conclusion indicates!) Why is the effect diagrammed as "interference with low-power circuitry" ?? I get that the two are linked, but the book says it is diagramming the causal assumption. Why the assumption and not the actual conclusion ??? I am quite confused by this if you cannot tell by my excessive punctuation.

2)
Answer choice (D) -- I seem to be constantly running into this "issue" recently ... How do know that electromagnetic radiation equates to interference?? I sat with this as a contender for a while, as I considered this to be the correct answer by way of this randomly introduced electromagnetic radiation having no effect on the argument! So what if you may die from radiation poising from your cell phone ?? As long as the plane flies OK!!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi avengingangel,

Thanks for your questions.

First off, let's think about what an assumption is: it is a claim that the conclusion requires to be true. In this particular instance, the author is assuming that the electronic devices (and, specifically, the interference between the low power circuitry of the plane's navigation system and the electronic devices) causes a problem. The conclusion states that the electronic devices are causing the problem (as you point out), but the implicit assumption is that the interference with low-power circuitry is the specific cause. I really wouldn't worry about the distinction here: you certainly understood the causal reasoning that underlies the conclusion, but chose to focus on a slightly different aspect of the argument.

To answer your second question, answer choice (D) explains precisely how portable electronic devices can cause interference: by emitting electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation does not equate with interference. But, if significant radiation is emitted by portable electronic devices, it is reasonable to conclude that such devices would interfere with another device that operates under the same laws of thermodynamics (such as an electric circuit).

Hope this helps! Let me know

Thanks,

[avengingangel]

Nikki, thanks so much.

To #1 -- yeah, I think at that point I think I was getting a little to caught up with the small stuff (if you didn't notice, I posted that at 2 AM! My brain needed sleep).

And to #2 --

But, if significant radiation is emitted by portable electronic devices, it is reasonable to conclude that such devices would interfere with another device that operates under the same laws of thermodynamics (such as an electric circuit).

I guess I just don't have a strong enough grasp on the laws of thermodynamics / science in general. I mean, I did enough to not choose this answer, but, I wish I could have felt more confident. Hm.

Thanks!