questions

For me, it helps to think in terms of broad trends instead of fixating on specific question types (don’t come at me — I still think in terms of question types, but let me explain).

For any subjective question (NA, SA, PSA/principle, S/W, flaw, parallel flaw), you’re being asked—either implicitly or explicitly—to critique the argument at play. In other words, you’re being asked to figure out why the premises don’t actually guarantee the conclusion. So I begin my approach to these questions the same way: 1) read question stem (which of the following, if true…), 2) go back and read the stimulus, 3) figure out why the premises don’t actually guarantee the conclusion, then 4) choose the correct AC based on the type of question being asked. The variability among subjective question types only really emerges in the fourth step.

For example, here’s a stimulus: “If someone fears climate change, they avoid using fossil fuels. Ryan does not fear climate change. Therefore, Ryan does not avoid using fossil fuels.”

Now look at the following stems that could feasibly accompany this question:

-The author’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it? (Flaw)

-Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion to be properly inferred? (SA)

-Which of the following assumptions is required for the argument? (NA)

Let’s pretend like we’ve stumbled upon any of the above question stems for the argument above. Here’s how I would think through things, after seeing this is (regardless of which stem of the 3 above it is) a subjective LR question: 1) read stem (done—this is subjective), 2) read stimulus (done — I’ve seen this logical fallacy before…), 3) figure out why premises don’t guarantee conclusion (…the author assumed that because A—>B, /A—>/B. In LR fancy-speak, that’s “confusing sufficiency and necessity,” since /B should allow us to conclude /A, but /A should tell us nothing about B…i.e. could still be B or /B). 4) NOW I engage with the question type.

For the flaw stem: my prephrase is something like “confuses sufficiency and necessity” or “assumes that the absence of the sufficient condition guarantees the absence of the necessary condition.” Flaw questions are pretty much directly asking what your answer to part 3 of the method above was.

For the SA stem: I need to “close the gap” and get the premises to guarantee the conclusion. My gap is between “not avoid fossil fuels” and “not fear climate change.” So my prephrase is something like “all people who don’t avoid fossil fuels don’t fear climate change,” “the only people who do not avoid fossil fuels are those who do not fear climate change,” “only those who do not fear climate change do not avoid fossil fuels,” or any other lawgic way of saying that /B guarantees /A.

For the NA stem: I could use the negation test or MBT test (my preference) on the ACs. The question I’m asking is “what must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises?” (MBT test) or “which AC, if it isn’t true, makes my conclusion not follow from my premises?” (Negation test). In this case, the answer may very well be the same as the SA prephrase above but could also be something less obvious.

Sorry for the long-winded answer, but hopefully that shows why I think it’s helpful to think in terms of broad patterns and then focus on the specific question type towards the later part of your process, assuming you recognized the broad “subjective vs. objective” category upfront.

2 comments

jwn1060
Saturday, Nov 01

For me, it helps to think in terms of broad trends instead of fixating on specific question types (don’t come at me — I still think in terms of question types, but let me explain).
For any subjective question (NA, SA, PSA/principle, S/W, flaw, parallel flaw), you’re being asked—either implicitly or explicitly—to critique the argument at play. In other words, you’re being asked to figure out why the premises don’t actually guarantee the conclusion. So I begin my approach to these questions the same way: 1) read question stem (which of the following, if true…), 2) go back and read the stimulus, 3) figure out why the premises don’t actually guarantee the conclusion, then 4) choose the correct AC based on the type of question being asked. The variability among subjective question types only really emerges in the fourth step.
For example, here’s a stimulus: “If someone fears climate change, they avoid using fossil fuels. Ryan does not fear climate change. Therefore, Ryan does not avoid using fossil fuels.”
Now look at the following stems that could feasibly accompany this question:
-The author’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it? (Flaw)
-Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion to be properly inferred? (SA)
-Which of the following assumptions is required for the argument? (NA)
Let’s pretend like we’ve stumbled upon any of the above question stems for the argument above. Here’s how I would think through things, after seeing this is (regardless of which stem of the 3 above it is) a subjective LR question: 1) read stem (done—this is subjective), 2) read stimulus (done — I’ve seen this logical fallacy before…), 3) figure out why premises don’t guarantee conclusion (…the author assumed that because A—>B, /A—>/B. In LR fancy-speak, that’s “confusing sufficiency and necessity,” since /B should allow us to conclude /A, but /A should tell us nothing about B…i.e. could still be B or /B). 4) NOW I engage with the question type.
For the flaw stem: my prephrase is something like “confuses sufficiency and necessity” or “assumes that the absence of the sufficient condition guarantees the absence of the necessary condition.” Flaw questions are pretty much directly asking what your answer to part 3 of the method above was.
For the SA stem: I need to “close the gap” and get the premises to guarantee the conclusion. My gap is between “not avoid fossil fuels” and “not fear climate change.” So my prephrase is something like “all people who don’t avoid fossil fuels don’t fear climate change,” “the only people who do not avoid fossil fuels are those who do not fear climate change,” “only those who do not fear climate change do not avoid fossil fuels,” or any other lawgic way of saying that /B guarantees /A.
For the NA stem: I could use the negation test or MBT test (my preference) on the ACs. The question I’m asking is “what must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises?” (MBT test) or “which AC, if it isn’t true, makes my conclusion not follow from my premises?” (Negation test). In this case, the answer may very well be the same as the SA prephrase above but could also be something less obvious.
Sorry for the long-winded answer, but hopefully that shows why I think it’s helpful to think in terms of broad patterns and then focus on the specific question type towards the later part of your process, assuming you recognized the broad “subjective vs. objective” category upfront.

1

Drop image here!

D'oh! Upload failed

Add link

URL

Text
DeeTee
Saturday, Nov 01

Drill until it comes natural. After reading and doing questions I would say it’s a instinct by this

2

Drop image here!

D'oh! Upload failed

Add link

URL

Text

Discussions

questions

Confirm action