PTC.S2.Q18 - Sid: The sign says "Keep off

Comments

• akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  October 2018 edited October 2018 9382 karma

  Sid is saying that the statement [a person walking across the grass does not hurt it] is false. That means Sid is saying one person walking does hurt.

  P: Everyone believed [a person walking across the grass does not hurt it] → Everyone would walk and grass would die
  ————————
  C: One person walking across the grass hurts the grass.

  I think (B) says this:
  The argument treats a statement (a person walking across the grass does not hurt it) as though it were about the consequences of everyone believing that one person walking on it won’t hurt it.

  I actually don’t get what (A) is trying to say. Can you break it down for me? What are “actions” in “consequences of actions”? I think it’s [a person walking across the grass]? Is Sid attempting to use which statement about it? I guess it would be this: Everyone believed [a person walking across the grass does not hurt it] → Everyone would walk and grass would die. But this isn’t really a statement about the consequences of [a person walking across the grass], is it?
• Lucas Carter Alum Member ⭐

  October 2018 2804 karma

  Hey akistotle,

  Thanks for responding! I agree with your interpretation of the premise and conclusion. Would you agree that an assumption that Sid is making is that one person walking across the grass would cause everyone to erroneously believe that it is harmless and in turn ruin the grass? This series of events would create a situation in which Sid can conclude that one person walking across the grass is harmful because of its undesirable consequences. Another interpretation I thought of was that Sid is almost committing a part v. whole flawed argument. This is because Sid sees that the whole population walking across the grass is bad and from that concludes that part (1 person) walking across the grass must also be bad. I know this is probably a stretch but this question has been driving me crazy so I figured I would point it out.

  I think the answer choices heavy use of referential phrasing makes it super hard to ascertain what is actually being talked about. I really like your interpretation of B in that Sid is mistakenly interpreting Micki's statement to be about the consequences of everyone believing a statement, instead of about the isolated consequences of a statement. I was unable to see this before. To break this down, B states:

  Treats a statement =Micki's statement

  About the consequences of an action= walking across the grass not being bad if done by 1 person

  as though the statement were instead about the consequences of everyone believing the statement. So essentially Sid is not addressing Micki's statement at all and is treating it as if it is saying something completely different. An easier way LSAC could have given us a Flaw AC would have been "Fails to address Micki's point".

  I am very confused about what A is actually saying as well. Here is my best interpretation:

  Attempts to use a statement= This must be talking about something that Sid is using

  About the consequences of an action= Everyone Believing 1 person is harmless

  To disprove a statement about the actions themselves= The statement being disproven is Micki's statement which is the action of 1 person walking across the grass.

  A seems really attractive to me using this interpretation because Sid is talking about the consequences of something to try to determine the inherent isolated effect of something.
• Logic Gainz Alum Member ⭐

  November 2018 700 karma

  I like the analysis so far! I think A's interpretation turns on how one reads "actions".

  I might be wrong, but I saw AC A as not characterizing the conversation accurately in that the statement AC A is ambiguously referring to is Sid's only premise: "If everyone believed as you do, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die." That's the statement. I say it's Sid's premise because "using" a statement is what one does with a premise by definition. Premises are used to prove a particular conclusion in an argument - I know y'all know this but typing this out is mainly for my benefit. Sid certainly wouldn't be using anything Micki is saying to prove his/her own argument in the way described above.

  The statement (i.e. premise) in Sid's argument contains actions and their consequence.

  Actions = Everyone believed as you do
  Consequence = Everyone would walk across the grass
  'Slippery Slope' Secondary Consequence = The grass would die

  I argue that the action defined above is the appropriate referent of the word "action" in AC A. If we take that to be the action, then the statement made by Micki - the one Sid is refuting - isn't even about the defined action above. Micki's argument is referring to a completely different action: "...just one person walking across the grass," not the one defined above. If anything, A is mischaracterizing Micki's argument by attributing the wrong type of action to it: "Everyone believing as you do" for "just one person walking across the grass." That's why I thought A was descriptively inaccurate, since Sid's argument doesn't do that.

  That's just my interpretation. I wouldn't stake my life on it...