PT16.S2.Q10 - A fundamental illusion in robotics

moonstars5678moonstars5678 Member
edited May 2022 in Logical Reasoning 166 karma

Hi everyone, I've been rolling around in this question for a very long time and still have some fundamental questions so would be great if someone can confirm my thinking/help answer those questions. Thanks in advance!

Stimulus breakdown:
P: The robots that are being designed are the ones that can be maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible
C: So robots won't eliminate demeaning work, they're just gonna basically substitute one "demeaning job" for another

In more human terms, the argument is saying that if there are 100 people assembling car parts in a factory (assuming that we call that a demeaning job), then the addition of robots will basically take those 100 jobs and turn it into 100 jobs of monitoring the robots (which they also assume is a demeaning job).

My question: It seems like this question makes us assume that "hazardous and demeaning work" is the same as "least expensive, least skilled human labor." Is this a flaw or is this something we could be allowed to assume?

Answer Choices:

A) Using 2-step test, this does happen in that he ignores that some jobs might be eliminated if the factories don't use robots. But this is not the flaw because even if he did consider that, it doesn't hit on the conclusion that robots are really just substituting and not reducing the net # of demeaning jobs

B) Not descriptively accurate, so fails step 1

C) Descriptively accurate - he doesn't specify what the engineers think but fails step 2 because that's not an issue. Even if he hits on the sentiments of the engineer, it doesn't weaken his argument that the robots are just subbing demeaning jobs and not even decreasing the net #

D) Not descriptively accurate - there's not any fear that's happening here

E) Descriptively accurate and if he did acknowledge that it's possible that 1 robot could replace the 100 shitty jobs in the care factory with just 1, then his conclusion that "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" no longer holds.
My question here is though, is it okay that a weakening answer basically completely destroys the argument? I know we can't attack the premise but not sure where that stands for the conclusion/broader argument.

help

Admin Note: Edited the title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

Comments

  • Steven_B-1Steven_B-1 Member
    800 karma

    Yes it is okay. There isn't a limit to how much you could weaken. So destroying the argument completely falls within the subset of what we call "weaken."

  • Summer2022Summer2022 Member
    30 karma

    I think it's ok! In weaken questions we accept the assumption is right and thinking what is the assumption here to validate the conclusion. In this question:

    P: Only least expensive, least skilled human labor robots are designed.
    C: Bots will not eliminate demeaning work, only substitute.
    Assume: demeaning work = the least expensive and least skilled human job. 100 product makers = 100 machine operators for the same kind/amount of work.
    A: didn’t mention manufacturing
    B: not a circular argument
    C: not the same subject term
    D: irrelevant
    E: correct because it states demeaning work =/ least expensive and least skilled human job. 100 product makers = 1 machine operator for the same kind/amount of work, eliminate 100 vs create 1 which is a significantly greater.

  • moonstars5678moonstars5678 Member
    166 karma

    Thank you both!

Sign In or Register to comment.