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.

lukerldavis

I hope there is no rule against reviving old posts, but I have struggled with reconciling how answer choice D is correct and here is how I addressed it broadly and concisely:

Broad Flaw: The counselor is using their majoritarian view of "Comparing" to justify a majoritarian view of "not Comparing," it also causing a majority response without considering "something else (the non-majority causes in the premises outside of almost invariably being at least 50%+1 but not 100%)" and other variables:

Concise/Generic Flaw: Assuming that if a majority of variable-effects are true, the opposing or opposite variable-effects are also true in the majority; all without considering other causes of the opposing or opposite variable-effects.

Does this make sense or is this the wrong way to approach getting to answer choice D?

darman45

@lukerldavis said:
I hope there is no rule against reviving old posts, but I have struggled with reconciling how answer choice D is correct and here is how I addressed it broadly and concisely:

Broad Flaw: The counselor is using their majoritarian view of "Comparing" to justify a majoritarian view of "not Comparing," it also causing a majority response without considering "something else (the non-majority causes in the premises outside of almost invariably being at least 50%+1 but not 100%)" and other variables:

Concise/Generic Flaw: Assuming that if a majority of variable-effects are true, the opposing or opposite variable-effects are also true in the majority; all without considering other causes of the opposing or opposite variable-effects.

Does this make sense or is this the wrong way to approach getting to answer choice D?

Okay, honestly, your wording was a bit tough to understand, but I think your broad flaw sounds like it could be correct. I'm just going to break it down here for my own sake, but hopefully this also helps someone else.

The author says the following:
compare to more successful -> self-disparagement
compare to less successful -> dismissive of others

The correct contrapositive would be:
/self-disparagement -> /compare to more successful
/dismissive of others -> /compare to less successful

However, the author instead concludes that:
/compare to more successful -> /self-disparagement
/compare to less successful -> /dismissive of others

I think this is a sufficiency/necessity error. Refraining from comparing yourself to others does not ensure that you are not going to be self-disparaging or dismissive of others. On most questions, an answer choice will kind of whisper something along those lines by saying something like "confuses a condition that is sufficient with a condition that is necessary" or so on. But in this case, none of the answer choices do that, even though we know in our hearts that the stimulus is drawing an invalid conclusion. What do we do in that instance? Read all the answer choices, see which one speaks to this truth the most.

(A) if A is true, then all we end up with is the reality that someone can be both self-disparaging and dismissive of others. You can actually be both if you compare yourself to people who you believe are less successful and more successful. Is that a flaw here? No, it's just a completely different point. The flaw is rooted in what the author thinks will allow a person to be self-accepting and accepting of others.

(B) There's often one of these answer options. Sure, maybe there are other beneficial effects. We're focused on the negative effects, though, and ways to prevent those negative effects.

(C) C is almost restating the point. It's like "the author didn't explicitly state that if you are dismissive of others, you are not accepting of others." Is that why this whole argument is wrong? Did we need the author to say "if you are dismissive others, you do not accept them?" No, because ultimately, the main issue here is the necessity/sufficiency confusion. At the end of the day, even if the author did tell us that

compare to less successful -> dismissive of others -> /accepting of others

the counselor still went ahead and concluded that

/compare to less successful -> /dismissive of others -> accepting of others

Even if C was implemented in the stimulus, it wouldn't change the fact that the author derives their conclusion from mistaking necessity/sufficiency.

(D) D is tough because it hints at the flaw without stating it as explicitly as a lot of other questions have in the past, which was my understanding of @BinghamtonDave explanation above. D is saying "okay, you can be self-disparaging and dismissive of others even if you're not comparing yourself to them." In other words, D is saying that comparing yourself to others is not sufficient to being self-disparaging or dismissive. Sure, maybe comparing yourself to others is a necessary condition, like so:

being self-disparaging -> comparing yourself to others

But we know that the rules of lawgic say that just because you don't have the necessary condition doesn't mean that you don't have the sufficient condition. So just because you're not comparing yourself to others doesn't mean there aren't other conditions that might contribute to you being self-disparaging.

I think the other reason that this answer works is because we know that the argument in the stimulus is not valid. Answer choice D is like one step ahead of the game. The first step would be to acknowledge the flawed conclusion. The second step would be to acknowledge the other contributing factors to actually being self-accepting and accepting of others. D does step 2.

(E) not true. The stimulus does not assume that all people who compare themselves end up in a spiral of badness. The stimulus is saying that if you are actively comparing yourself to believe who you already believe are better/worse than you, then you're self-disparaging or dismissive of others. But if you're comparing yourself to someone who you have no pre-conceived ideas about, or are neutral about, the author doesn't saying anything about what happens then.

lukerldavis

@darman45

Yes, thank you! What you said finally clicked with me. Non-comparison can mostly lead to self-acceptance and accepting of others but other things can lead to self-acceptance being accepting of others too. Non-comparison does not have an EXCLUSIVE relationship to self-acceptance and being accepting of others.