PT24.S2.Q08 - sociologist: she claim that

Henry AnHenry An Alum Member
edited March 2017 in Logical Reasoning 123 karma

Hi

So, it seems that these circular reasoning questions are killing me... okay so I have a question on answer choice B. I am not quite sure why this argument is circular reasoning. The structure is:

  1. Premise1: Violent crimes are rare
  2. Premise2: Newspapers are likely to print stories about them
  3. Premise3: The claime that there is a large number of violent crimes is based upon the large number of stories in newspapers
  4. Main Conclusion: The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false

Okay, so the explanation to this question states that it is circular reasoning with premise 1 (Violent crimes are rare) and the main conclusion (The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false. However, the reasoning on why I eliminated this answer choice was:

1) To say that the claim that "there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false" does NOT mean that it is rare. To say that this claim is false can be interpreted in a number of ways: number can be rare, a small number, or a DECENT/NORMAL sized number.
So if we were to look at this argument structure specifically at the circular reasoning part:

  1. Premise: Crimes are rare
  2. Conclusion: Therefore, it is not the case that there is a large amount of crimes

This seems to be good inferencing to me? I recall a lecture in 7sage's logical courses.

  1. Premise: Few cats can bark.
  2. Conclusion: Therefore, it is not the case that all cats cannot bark.

Here, to say that it is not the case that all cats cannot bark can mean several things: few cats can bark, many cats can bark, or all cats can bark. Yet, we never question the inference made from this structure...

2) Another reason for why I thought this was not circular reasoning was because of one of the tips from one of the lessons.
Even if we were to assume that those two sentences meant the same thing, it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. See https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark). After doing several circular reasoning questions, this advice seems to not stand anymore... Some clarification would be great on this point that the addition of additional premises circumvents the argument from circular reasoning.

Any take on these two points? So in my view, I'm not sure but would like some clarification on this, is that even though we see an answer choice, and from mechanical thinking, identify the answer choice as circular reasoning, there are quite different nuances in each one. For instance, here is another answer choice that can be identified as circular reasoning.

PT17 S2 Q2

E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion

If this wording for circular reasoning had been provided, it would definitely miss the mark, as being rare is NOT a restatement of not a large number.

However, if we are to look at the answer choice in question:

PT24 S2 Q8

  • presupposes the truth of the conclusion it is attempting to establish

This wording would be true for this argument. While the conclusion is NOT a restatement of its premise, it still does presuppose the truth of it (If the statement that violent crimes are rare is true, then without a doubt, the conclusion that there are not a large number of violent crimes is true, as "being rare" implies that "it is not a large number").

So my take on this is that:
1) circular reasoning cannot be a full explanation for this argument, but rather on the presupposing the truth of the conclusion
2) circular reasoning are not all the same, but have different focuses (e.g. conclusion restating a premise, and conclusion presupposing the truth of a premise, these two are NOT the same)

Any feedback would be great!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-08/

Comments

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    edited March 2017 3112 karma

    Hi!

    I think the common theme with your questions are that you can't take the test too literally. Meaning that we need to understand the logical structure here. A premise and the conclusion are logically equivalent. By saying two logically equivalent statements, you are essentially saying the same thing twice and not supporting your statement. In other words, the reasoning is circular.

    To your first point:

    it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises.

    The problem here the additional premise is logically equivalent to the conclusion, even though it is additional. In other words, the statement "violent crimes are very rare" (VCR) is the same as "the claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false." /(LNVC). If we distribute the /, we get "there is not a large number of violent crimes in our society." In other words, it is safe to assume that violent crimes are rare. (There is no real critical distinction between being rare and very rare. That is subjective.)

    But, for me, the real key to understanding this question was the word "since." By saying that word, you are assuming that what follows is a factual and true statement. By logically equating this to the conclusion, we can see that they are presupposing the conclusion. Basically, and naturally, we presuppose the truth of the premises in order to create a conclusion. JY says this in the lessons too. So by presupposing a premise that is actually a conclusion, you are presupposing the conclusion.

    To your second point

    circular reasoning are not all the same, but have different focuses

    Sure this may be true. But it still doesn't change the fact that circular is circular, no matter how you spin it. That is kind of like saying not all sufficiency necessity flaws are the same because some negate the sufficient and some assume the necessary. But what is actually true is that they are logically equivalent flaws. No matter how you spin each of those scenarios, both are fundamentally doing the same thing.

    I know I mentioned logical equivalence a lot, but that is what this test really comes down to. It is not so much about the wording of the test, as much it is the wording's purpose. I know this is a lot to take in now and you are asking great questions (they certainly make me think)! But keep at it and just remember that structure and purpose often outweigh what is actually being said.

  • Henry AnHenry An Alum Member
    edited March 2017 123 karma

    @JustDoIt Thank you for your reply! I can truly understand your explanation on the second point, and I'll be sure to heed this when I see similar questions. But, I cannot quite understand how the premise and conclusion for this question is logically equivalent. When we say "It is false that A is taller than B," This can imply that A is shorter than B, or it can easily imply that A and B are the same height.

    You have mentioned in your explanation that there is no critical distinction between being rare and being very rare, and that these two were subjective. I agree with that. However, the problem that I raised was that "being rare" is not a logical equivalent statement of "being not the case that it is large." If we were to split the logical world into two halves (one being large, and the other being NOT large), the latter world includes the possible options of being rare, or even a regular decent sized amount. In other words, the statement that "it is rare" implies the statement that "it is not large," but not the other way around.

    This is similar in reasoning from the example I mentioned above. The statement that "A is shorter than B" is not logically equivalent to "It is not the case that A is taller than B," as the second statement has more possible words (A being the exact same height as B ). In other words, the first statement implies the second, but not the other way around.

    The meaning of logical equivalence means that the two statements are equal in logical meaning. Then to my understanding, if indeed circular reasoning is about the circular support of two logically equivalent statements, it wouldn't matter whether we put the first or the second statement into the premise, and the other into the conclusion. However consider this example that is closer in relevance to Q8. It is not the case that it is large. Therefore, it is tiny." This would NOT be a valid inference. On the other hand, if we turn it around and say "It is tiny. Therefore, it is not the case that it is large." This would actually be a valid inference. The fact that the the ordering of premise and conclusion determining whether or not it becomes a valid inference dictates that they are not logically equivalent statements.

    More feedback would be great... Thanks for everything!

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    3112 karma

    In other words, the statement that "it is rare" implies the statement that "it is not large," but not the other way around.

    You did it!!! You may have just glossed over it but this is exactly why it is circular. The premise is that it is rare. This implies that this is not large, like you said. So by saying, basically, since this is rare, this is not large. It is literally presupposing what it sets out to prove because it is trying to prove that it is not large and in order to do so, it is basing its sole reasoning for doing so off it being rare.

    Hope this helps!

Sign In or Register to comment.