Query failed: connection to 172.31.3.4:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused). October 2012 Digital LR2 16 (Please Help!!) - 7Sage Forum

October 2012 Digital LR2 16 (Please Help!!)

alyanna1235alyanna1235 Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 12 karma

If anyone can help explain this I would truly appreciate it!! I've been trying to understand it for the past hour but still can't grasp why the right answer is right. I've watched the explanation video on 7sage and read power score's explanation but don't understand their conditional diagrams.

Conclusion: Thus, without increased funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions, the chemistry department is unlikely to gain the prestige that only achievements in basic science research confer.

Evidence/Premise:
1. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies and other profit-driven institutions provide nearly all of the funding for the chemistry department’s research.
2. Moreover, unless we can secure more funding for basic science research, it is highly unlikely that any significant advances in basic research will come out of the department.

Diagram explained by Power-score:
Premise: Advances in basic research -> More money

Premise: Gain prestige -> Advances in basic research

Conclusion: Gain prestige -> Money from sources other than Big Pharma.

Assumption/Pre-phrase: More money -> Money from sources other than Big Pharma

This is my new Diagram while reworking the problem:
SABR = Significant advances in Basic Research/ Only achievements in basic research confer
SFBR = Secure Funding for Basic Research
GP = Gain the Prestige
IF (NP) = Increased Profit from Non profits and non Pharmaceutical companies

Premise 1: SABR -> SFBR
Premise 2: GP -> SABR
Conclusion: GP -> IF (NP)

So here is where I am lost. I originally only had Premise 1 and the Conclusion diagramed because I thought "that only achievements in basic science research confer" was a part of the Conclusion. But I am assuming because of the necessary indicator "only" we need to add another premise and thats where premise 2 comes in? But I'm confused where we connect the pre-phrase/missing link/assumption because there are 2 "GP's". If anyone can please help explain because I know understanding this will be helpful towards future questions with the same difficulty and concept. I tried understanding it without conditional diagrams as I would approach it like any other NA question, but that was difficult as well.

Comments

  • b.oshbarkerb.oshbarker Live Member
    18 karma

    I think with NA questions, thorough diagramming like this only serves to confuse you. I typically like to take a completely different approach to NA than I would to PSA or SA. Applying the negation test is a really powerful tool for these types of questions and can help identify the NA easily just by asking "if this were to be negated, would the argument still function?" Let's apply this to this specific question.

    We are told that profit-driven institutions are responsible for almost all the funding for the department's research, and unless we can find more funding for basic science research, it is unlikely that we will make any significant advances. Thus, without increased funding from institutions that are not profit-driven, the department is unlikely to gain the prestige that it can only obtain from basic science research achievements. Here we can recognize a gap between the need to obtain more funding and the need to obtain funding specifically from institutions that are not profit-driven. AC D recognizes this and tells us "the chemistry department's funding is not likely to increase if its funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions doesn't increase." Here it is already relatively obvious to see that this is a required assumption, but to make it even clearer we can apply the negation test and read this as "the chemistry department's funding IS likely to increase if its funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions doesn't increase." If this were true, then why the hell does the department need to obtain funding from institutions that are not profit-driven if their funding is going to increase anyways? And thus the argument falls apart under the negated assumption. This shows us that this is in fact the required/necessary assumption because without it our argument can't function.

    Breaking down NA questions into conditional diagrams can be very time consuming and confusing considering that we are not trying to reach a strong or valid conclusion like we would be in SA or PSA, but rather just something that the argument absolutely needs to not fall apart. Applying the negation test is an easy way to recognize these subtleties as I find with NA it is hard to pre-phrase sometimes.

    Hope this helps!

  • alyanna1235alyanna1235 Alum Member
    12 karma

    Wow! this put it in a lot simpler way than how I was approaching it. Diagraming definitely made it more confusing for me. This really helped me understand, thank you so much!

Sign In or Register to comment.