PTC.S3.Q14 - Wu: Jurgens is dishonest

Comments

• unclesysy Alum Member

  November 2018 edited November 2018 106 karma

  @"Logic Gainz"

  My take is that in the question stem and in (A), Miller doesn't directly address the argument made by Wu.

  In the QS, rather than rebutting the argument that a dishonest person should not be elected mayor, Miller instead makes an argument about why honest people should not be elected mayor.

  In (A), rather than rebutting the argument that they should not return to a restaurant because service was too slow, Miller instead makes an argument about why fast service at a restaurant is bad.

  In answer choices (B) - (D), Miller directly rebuts Wu's argument by stating why the quality Wu considers a negative is actually a positive.

  I'm guessing (E) is supposed to be the tricky AC. Miller answers Wu's argument by stating that the quality Wu desires is actually irrelevant to the case at hand.
• Logic Gainz Alum Member ⭐

  November 2018 700 karma

  You're spot on @unclesysy

  I've never seen this flaw conveyed like this. I looked up the explanation in the SuperPrep book too. The flaw I learned is this: Refuting the opposite of a thing isn't grounds for supporting the thing itself. I know that seems obvious, but it wasn't under timed conditions. For example:

  Person A: We shouldn't pick Sally to be point guard on the team because she's selfish and won't pass the ball.

  Person B: No we should pick Sally! Selfless people are too timid to make important game time decisions under pressure.

  Refuting selflessness doesn't actually allow us to conclude to choose Sally in the above scenario. I thought this was really interesting, because I'm sure I've used this flawed logic in my every day conversations before.