PT49.S4.Q23 - Counselor: Constantly comparing oneself to those

ec8282013

Sometimes in flaw questions, I realize that the flaw is an incorrect negation (e.g. a --> b, ~a-->~b), however the answer choice will not explicitly say "incorrect negation"

Is one regular way of describing the conditional flaw of "incorrect negation" that "the argument assumes that the only way to get to 'b' is 'a'" or "fails to see that a is not the only condition to get to 'b'?"

I'm trying to see if i properly understand PT 49 - s4 #23

Admin note: edited title

_oshun1_

I think this is a good question. I do agree that the argument concluded an improper negation and contrapositive flaw. But, I don’t think the right AC necessarily addresses that. I think generally a cookie cutter weaken AC just says A & /B. It just takes the conclusion and says sometimes it is not the case that...

Stim:
Compare self to others—> self disparaging & dismissive
Thus,
/compare self to others —likely—> self accepting & accepting of others

D) pretty much says
/compare self to others <-sometimes->/self-accepting & /accepting of others

I think it’s saying that, self disparagement and being dismissive of others can be caused by other things. So even if you stop comparing yourself to others, you could still be self disparaging (not self accepting) & dismissive (not accepting of others).

BinghamtonDave

Excellent question. You hit at something really crucial here. Sometimes, we might be able to see the the reasoning in the stimulus has mistaken a necessary condition for a sufficient condition, but the description of that error might be hard to parse and consequentially, we might overlook the answer choice.

There is a ton to unpack here, but I will stick to something I believe you can carry into other questions. It is far more practical to truly understand the underpinnings of this flaw and fashion the skill of being able to parse out an answer choice.

If I state that a relationship exists in the world:

If something is an apple then it is a fruit

There are basically two ways in which I can create an error out of that conditional statement via the flaw you asked about.

I can say:
I don't have an apple therefore I don't have a fruit
or I can say
I have a fruit therefore I have an apple

49-4-23 is the first form. On the basis of not having an apple, the argument concludes not having a fruit. This is erroneous because other things could be sufficient to give me fruit: bananas, strawberries etc. In short, the argument ignores the possibility that having a fruit can result from having something other than an apple.

This description gets to the core of why taking:
Apple---->Fruit is erroneous reasoning when we base it on Apple--->Fruit
We have treated the sufficient condition (in this case apple) as if it were a necessary condition. We have treated:
Apple--->Fruit
As if it was
Fruit--->Apple

This is mistaking necessary for sufficient. The two things are different logically. What happens when we deprive something of its necessary condition is different than what happens when we deprive something of its sufficient condition.

In summation, sometimes, the answer choices will not have the buzzwords sufficient and necessary in them, instead they will demand of us this, deeper knowledge of the flaw.

I hope this outline helps
David

ec8282013

@BinghamtonDave said:
In summation, sometimes, the answer choices will not have the buzzwords sufficient and necessary in them, instead they will demand of us this, deeper knowledge of the flaw.

That was a really helpful explanation and does help, thank you very much

attorneysomerville

I hate this kind of question. Normally, I read the stimulus very carefully because I find it easier to find the flaw than to match it with the answer. That's especially true here--it is a classic example of an incorrect negation but that's not what the answer says. The credited answer is that the author "overlooks" a negation of the conclusion. That's certainly true, but you could say that about ANY argument.

I guess the take-away is, "If one of the answers is a negation of the conclusion, it might be just what you're looking for!" Somehow I don't see that being all that helpful all that often.