PT21.S2.Q25 - statistician: changes in the sun's luminocity

Comments

• 1 Like

  extramedium Alum Member

  April 2017 419 karma

  @7SageThanks said:

  If an author cites what someone else says without saying it themselves can that author be said to have said the same thing?

  This question makes me think the answer is no, but I was hoping someone could verify that.

  Wow. This is a tricky question. Did you originally pick A?

  The weird thing about E, which you seem to be alluding to, is that it's a meteorologist appealing to the authority of meteorologists, which seems completely legit. I don't know how you can make a fallacious appeal to authority if you are the authority or at least part of it.

  But then I thought about it more and it occurred to me that you can't necessarily say the Meteorologist evaluated the merits of the example just because he cited experts who cite a general principle that speaks to the counterexample.

  This other part ("evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample") is also strange since land temperatures are encompassed within the term "climate". In this sense, I'm not quite sure how it could be considered a counterexample. This is why I would've picked A, which seems to be saying "Hey, it's not only the luminosity that affects climate. There are other factors as well."

  Can we get @BinghamtonDave in here?
• BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  April 2017 8716 karma

  Thank you for tagging me, I am glad to help.

  I think it is helpful to break this problem down step by step, like Mr. Ping does in the lessons. Remember with this question the flaw the test writers are after is the flaw within the meteorologist’s response.

  Let’s start with the statistician’s argument. The statistician makes an argument you are almost guaranteed to see on your administration of the exam: the statistician says that from the basis of a correlation between the sun’s luminosity and land temp, we can conclude that the sun’s luminosity controls land temps. We should pause here: I cannot stress this enough, when facing an argument like this, one should have an instant understanding of what is wrong with that argument (what it overlooks) and in addition to that the various ways the LSAT can state what is wrong with that argument-often times in highly abstract language. Please see this lesson at least once every 2-3 days until you have memorized this chart on an intuitive level:
  https://7sage.com/lesson/4-possible-explanations/

  In addition to knowing the possibilities of what a correlation gives rise to, my recommendation would be to have a folder or a notebook with several examples of each of those possibilities. This has really helped me.

  So then we have the meteorologist’s response to the statistician. Now, from the above the lessons, we know that when approached with argument like the one the statistician made, there is a proper way of weaken/strengthening or simply pointing out the flaw in the reasoning. What I mean by this is that with the exception of a possible changing of language or terms by the meteorologist (which we should always be on the lookout for) if the meteorologist answers something like: you have erroneously assumed that the correlation you have observed is not explained by the earth’s land temperatures setting off a chain reaction that changes the sun’s luminosity (B causes A), there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that reasoning.

  Instead of responding like that, like how we would if all we were given was the statistician’s argument, the meteorologist says: any member of my professor will tell you that because land temp exists within the context of climate broadly, it cannot be controlled by a “single variable.”

  This is an appeal to authority but it also does something deeper: the meteorologist really doesn’t deal with the correlation at hand. We have here not only an appeal to authority, but a complete abdication of logical responsibility by the meteorologist via that appeal to authority. The metrologist does not deal with the correlation/causation issue at all, simply saying that land temperatures can’t be controlled by a single variable by way of the authoritativeness of what at bottom is an opinion, is not good enough. We need more from the meteorologist.

  Let me set forth an example to hopefully illuminate this subtle point: there is a website that deals with “spurious correlations.” 2 things that are almost precisely correlated are divorce rates in the state of Maine and per capita consumption of margarine (which is fake butter.) Imagine someone crafted an argument that from the basis of the above correlation the divorce rate in Maine “essentially controls” the per capita consumption of margarine.

  In in response to that, I said: I work for Land O’Lakes (a company that sells margarine) and I can tell you that margarine consumption cannot be controlled by a single variable.

  But what about this nearly perfect correlation i.e. the evidence at hand?? I haven’t dealt with it.

  Moving into the answer choices take a look at (A): we don’t know what the partial explanation is. Partial of what? Not partial of climate, the meteorologist never asks for an argument to explain climate. The argument offered by the statistician is not partial of anything, it is on the face of it, offered as a full explanation. Furthermore, the answer choice is crafted in such a way that leads one to believe that we arrive at the rejection of a partial explanation, we don’t. We arrive at the rejection of the statistician’s argument full stop. We don’t even know if the meteorologist believes the argument offered by the statistician arises to the level of "partial." Also, the first step of our two pronged test for flaw questions is “factually accurate.” The metrologist does not reject the statistician’s argument on the basis that it is not complete, but rather on the basis of the authoritativeness of an opinion. Remember, “because” in our answer choices signifies the premise used to reach the conclusion by the meteorologist.

  (E)our meteorologist does appeal to authority, and our our metrologist does not consider the correlation outlined by the statistician, which is a counterexample because it run’s contra to the meteorologist’s conclusion.

  Any further questions do not hesitate to reach out.
  David
• extramedium Alum Member

  April 2017 419 karma

  @BinghamtonDave

  Thanks for getting back, Dave. You're always on the ball.

  Let’s start with the statistician’s argument. The statistician makes an argument you are almost guaranteed to see on your administration of the exam: the statistician says that from the basis of a correlation between the sun’s luminosity and land temp, we can conclude that the sun’s luminosity controls land temps.

  >

  How is this correlation a counterexample as defined by the AC? What is the example in the meteorologist's argument that is countered here? My understanding is that examples usually follow from a premise or a principle, and that they are generally put forth before counterexamples.

  This is an appeal to authority but it also does something deeper: the meteorologist really doesn’t deal with the correlation at hand. We have here not only an appeal to authority, but a complete abdication of logical responsibility by the meteorologist via that appeal to authority. The metrologist does not deal with the correlation/causation issue at all, simply saying that land temperatures can’t be controlled by a single variable by way of the authoritativeness of what at bottom is an opinion, is not good enough. We need more from the meteorologist.

  >

  Just to address the first part, when the meteorologist refers to "any professional meteorologist," he is not including himself in that group? He is abdicating (love that word) to a group outside of himself even though he is a meteorologist? Huge if true. I didn't know that was possible. Also, how is this an example? It reads more like a general principle.

  Let me set forth an example to hopefully illuminate this subtle point: there is a website that deals with “spurious correlations.” 2 things that are almost precisely correlated are divorce rates in the state of Maine and per capita consumption of margarine (which is fake butter.) Imagine someone crafted an argument that from the basis of the above correlation the divorce rate in Maine “essentially controls” the per capita consumption of margarine.

  In in response to that, I said: I work for Land O’Lakes (a company that sells margarine) and I can tell you that margarine consumption cannot be controlled by a single variable.

  But what about this nearly perfect correlation i.e. the evidence at hand?? I haven’t dealt with it.

  This is a very good example. Nice one. I'm starting to come around to the appeal to authority. I just don't understand how the last part of E fits the stimulus.

  Moving into the answer choices take a look at (A): we don’t know what the partial explanation is. Partial of what? Not partial of climate, the meteorologist never asks for an argument to explain climate. The argument offered by the statistician is not partial of anything, it is on the face of it, offered as a full explanation.

  >

  Still foggy here. It's offered as a full and thus, incorrect explanation because "essentially" leaves no room for the other variables as expressed by the meteorologists? And in examining the meteorologist's argument, we don't know if he thinks the statistician's argument is accurate or that luminosity has any role in climate/land temps. If that is the case, I understand why it doesn't address the statistician's argument.

  Furthermore, the answer choice is crafted in such a way that leads one to believe that we arrive at the rejection of a partial explanation, we don’t. We arrive at the rejection of the statistician’s argument full stop. We don’t even know if the meteorologist believes the argument offered by the statistician arises to the level of "partial." Also, the first step of our two pronged test for flaw questions is “factually accurate.” The metrologist does not reject the statistician’s argument on the basis that it is not complete, but rather on the basis of the authoritativeness of an opinion.

  >

  So he disagrees because it is incorrect and not incomplete? If he'd said something to the effect of "Luminosity is not the only factor controlling climate" and didn't make that appeal, would that be closer to being a rejection of a partial explanation? Taken on its own, I'm starting to think A isn't even a flaw. Sounds more like method of reasoning.

  (E)our meteorologist does appeal to authority, and our our metrologist does not consider the correlation outlined by the statistician, which is a counterexample because it run’s contra to the meteorologist’s conclusion.

  So a counterexample can come before an example? That's big. I had no idea.

  Sorry, I know this is a bit much. Tried helping someone else and ending up turning it into my own project lol.
• BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  April 2017 8716 karma

  No worries my friend, we learn from breaking things down together as a community.

  1.A "counterexample" is defined as: "an idea that refutes or disproves a proposition or theory." The modifier "putative" here signifies an assumed or supposed counterexample.

  If this were a disagree question, the meteorologist and the statistician disagree about the proposition: the sun's luminosity controls the land temperature on earth. That is the meteorologist's main point: the sun's luminosity does not control the land temperature on earth.
  The meteorologist's failure to address the correlation laid out by the statistician can be described as reasoning "without evaluating the merit of a putative counterexample." Counterexample to the meteorologist's main point.

  2.I'm not sure that the meteorologist is or is not appealing to that person's own authority. It could be the case, in that case it is still an appeal to authority only with a caveat of one being a member of that authority. I am not sure whether that makes the argument more or less valid. Furthermore, the meteorologist's belief (read: opinion) is nothing more than just that.

  3.Please see Chapter 7 of Douglas Walton's book: Informal Logic, A Pragmatic Approach, for further details on the appeal to authority. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

  The other points combined:

  A counterexample can indeed come before, especially if you are we are referring to two people talking. Especially when you are talking about ignoring that counterexample. Picture you and I were part of a carpool to a work site. And you told me in the morning: lets not take route A this morning because I heard on the news that route A will be bumper to bumper due to construction. And my response to that was: no, we are taking route A because I have google maps and google maps would have sent me an alert. I have ignored a counterexample here. A counterexample that comes before.

  So he disagrees because it is incorrect and not incomplete? If he'd said something to the effect of "Luminosity is not the only factor controlling climate" and didn't make that appeal, would that be closer to being a rejection of a partial explanation? >

  You and I see this almost exactly the same, although I would amend this to say that the meteorologist disagrees because of the appeal to the authority's opinion.