@Kevin_Lin Just bumping this once in case my follow-up got buried. I’m still slightly confused and would really value any additional input you might have. Thank you!

How do we know the 1000 readers surveyed were 1000 readers of the column? What if 0/1000 readers surveyed were readers of the column? I thought this was where the flaw was.

@Kevin_Lin

Interesting. So, in the more recent hypothetical exactly as I worded it, would you say that answer choice A is more strongly supported than B, even though neither speaker expresses support for or opposition to an advertising program?

By contrast, if Speaker 2 had said, “The reason we should not build more housing is that it would require building outside the designated residential area,” would B then be more strongly supported than A because it removes “the” reason for Speaker 2’s objection, whereas A still requires an additional inference about both speakers’ views on advertising?

@Kevin_Lin

I just watched your recorded lesson on advanced causal reasoning from October 2024, and I feel that the lesson may have some carryover to the question I had in mind.

If, for example:

Speaker 1: We should build more housing to increase traffic to the bowling alley. It would improve the local economy.

Speaker 2: Although we should improve the local economy, we should not build more housing. Building enough housing to increase traffic to the bowling alley would require us to build outside of the designated residential area.

What would the speakers most likely agree on?

A. Privately funded advertising that would increase traffic to the bowling alley.

B. Building multistory housing that would increase traffic to the bowling alley while remaining inside the designated residential area.

In your opinion, for this exact scenario, which one do you think they would be more likely to agree on?

My thoughts are:

I feel like both of them would agree with the broader goal A is trying to accomplish, yet we don’t know if one or both may have an unstated objection to privately funded advertising for some reason.

B appears to resolve the stated reason for Speaker 2’s opposition. After watching your advanced causal reasoning video, I began to think that maybe we do have reason to infer that, if the only stated basis for the objection were removed, Speaker 2 might agree. We also know Speaker 1 would likely agree because they wanted housing. However, Speaker 2 explicitly concludes, “We should not build more housing.” Answer choice B also seems to contradict Speaker 2’s premise that building enough housing to increase traffic would require building outside the designated residential area.

Sorry if neither answer is clearly correct; I made this question up. I feel like it captures the general idea of what I’m struggling with regarding where to give priority: to a new, unmentioned idea or to an option that resolves Speaker 2’s original objection.

@Kevin_Lin

Thank you, this helps.

@Kevin_Lin

I vaguely remember seeing a question with a similar structure, although there may have been a subtle wording distinction that I’m forgetting. I remember feeling completely stuck because four choices seemed to represent clear points of disagreement, while the remaining choice concerned something both speakers never addressed.

I was hoping you could help me think through a specific point-of-agreement scenario that I haven’t been able to find in the released questions.

Suppose:

Speaker 1: We should do X because it would accomplish goal G.

Speaker 2: We should not do X because it would cause problem H.

Question: Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 would be most likely to agree on:

A. A different proposal that accomplishes G without causing H.

B. Doing X in a modified way that would not cause H.

My confusion is this: For B, Speaker 2 explicitly concludes that they should not do X. If the modification eliminates their stated reason for opposing X, is it reasonable to infer that they would now accept it, or does their position merely become unknown?

For A, can we infer that Speaker 1 would support it because it accomplishes G and that Speaker 2 would support it because it avoids H, even though neither speaker addressed that proposal? Or would one or both speakers’ positions remain unknown because they never discussed the alternative in the stimulus?

Perhaps the specific scenario I outlined would not have a clearly correct answer, but I would appreciate any principles that could help me evaluate choices like these on a difficult question, as well as any other thoughts this scenario raises. Thank you!