Descriptive premises with normative conclusions in sufficient assumption questions

7SageThanks

Is it always the case that if an argument for a sufficient assumption question has descriptive premises with a normative conclusion (saying one should do something or ought to do it) then the answer choice must have normative language to close that gap?

Looking at PT 22, Section 4, Q13 and PT 62, Section 2, Q17, I can see many reasons to eliminate the other incorrect answer choices besides them lacking the normative language. However, I'm still hesitant to skip straight to the answer choices that say "should" because I'm still not sure if you need the word "should" or similar language to close the logical gap between the conclusion and premises. Is normative language in the answer choice always necessary to prove a normative conclusion when the premises don't have it?

Thanks!

JustDoIt

Short answer: it depends.

Long answer: It really depends on the argument. For example, on the question from PT 22, the argument just isn’t strong enough by using “should.” I would argue that isn’t going to be strong enough in most cases in order to prove sufficiency. So if we say should in an answer choice for the question from PT 22, it doesn’t give us a strong enough reason to adopt the bill. Which is why we need something with any. Of course if something applies universally we should do something in this case.

As far as the absolute language goes, I wouldn’t get caught up with prescriptive and descriptive claims. You still have to make the argument valid. The question from PT 22 can’t be made valid if you say something like “should” as a gap. Normative claims really aren’t even considered because the language as it is stated does not bring us to validity.

Hope this helps!

7SageThanks

Is using that type of prescriptive language ("should," "ought to," etc.) necessary to enable a conclusion with prescriptive language to be properly drawn in an argument that doesn't have premises that suggest a course of action?

What I'm struggling with is whether or not descriptive premises alone could be so strong that they would prove a prescriptive conclusion.

It's difficult to think of an example of what that might look like, but in general terms it might be something like: "We live in a capitalist economy, money is not easy to come by, everything is expensive which makes life difficult, if you take this job then you'll make more money than any other job out there, so you should take the job."

Forgive me if that example is a little rough, but from my perspective, those premises are so strong that they prove the conclusion that "you should take the job" and there's no logical gap. Then again, none of the premises specifically say anything prescriptive, so maybe it's not necessarily logically valid unless you assume something like "if you live in a capitalist economy and money is not easy to come by for you then you should take the job that pays you the most."

Hope this post isn't too confusing. Thanks for your help!

JustDoIt

@7SageThanks said:

What I'm struggling with is whether or not descriptive premises alone could be so strong that they would prove a prescriptive conclusion.

I mean...if this was the case, it wouldn't be an SA question. We would presumably have validity if the conclusion was "proved" to be true.

And even if we look at your example, we would still need a descriptive answer because a prescriptive answer won't make it strong enough.

I do not think that a descriptive premise could force a prescriptive answer choice because it is extremely unlikely that a prescriptive answer choice will ever make an argument valid. Prescriptive answer choices usually pertain to PSA questions.

This is completely different than a prescriptive conclusion. There are no grounds that need to be met in order to make a prescriptive conclusion. Just as you can have strong, descriptive premises, a prescriptive conclusion, and still have a gap somewhere in there.

I know we are getting into the weeds here so I'm glad to provide any clarification if this doesn't make sense

Hope this helps!

JustDoIt

Also, not to sound contrarian, I don't think, in your example, your conclusion is "proved" to be true. What if it is in a bad area or you would have to relocate and if you relocate you can't afford it? Or maybe you just don't want to ride the commuter rail everyday (get the salt). I don't think you can ever "prove" should because it is something subjective. We are looking for something universal in SA questions and subjectivity just doesn't meet the burden we need it to.

PSA this is perfectly acceptable and your argument wouldn't be bad by those standards. But we still could probably find a PSA answer choice

Hope this helps! Not trying to be argumentative and sorry if it comes off that way!

7SageThanks

Not at all, this was helpful, thank you. I suppose the takeaway is that in general with all sufficient assumption question types you want to look for the gap between the support and the conclusion and pick an answer choice that closes that gap. If there is a prescriptive conclusion that only has descriptive premises supporting it then you'll probably want to find an answer choice that addresses that gap between saying what something is and what something should be.

JustDoIt

Okay I've been thinking about this and I just want to clarify something. Let's see an example.

All cats have fur.
All cats like to have their fur brushed.
Therefore, you should brush your cat's fur.

I mean should we? Even though they like it, maybe you can't get close enough to your cat to brush it before it viciously attacking you. So maybe you shouldn't brush it.

What if we were to assume something along the lines of: "Humans should do whatever their cat's like." This is a rare instance of "should" actually working. But it is not because of "should" or the prescriptive nature. It is because this statement is so strong that it literally compels you to do whatever your cat likes. This would actually bring you to validity because we are missing the premise "cat like --> should do" and this is what this statement includes.

I guess what I am trying to get at is "should" is often reason enough to eliminate because it is so weak. It hardly ever brings us to that level of validity, which I addressed earlier. But sometimes the language that surrounds "should" is so strong that we have to select that answer choice. It has nothing to do with the normative nature. The rest of the statement sets up a sufficiency and necessity that forces you into a position where you ought to brush your cat because the sufficient condition is already satisfied.

Hope this helps!