This is a Miscellaneous question.

According to the question stem, the analysis portion of the stimulus applies to the situation portion of the stimulus in the same appropriate way that would also apply to four of the answer choices. Note the word “EXCEPT” in the stem.

The question tests reasoning by analogy, reasoning from principle to application, and causal reasoning.

The situation is that a physical therapist (1) wants her patients to derive more enjoyment from the challenge of developing physical skills. She also (2) wants them to spend more time practicing those skills.

The analysis says success in meeting the first objective (derive enjoyment) will bring about success in meeting the second objective (spend more time).

The analysis seems appropriate for the situation as along as we make the (quite reasonable) assumption that enjoyment of an activity causes more time to be spent on that activity. If we view that causal assumption (extracted from the analysis) as a principle, then the situation can be viewed as an application of that principle. The analysis itself is a more general version of that causal principle.

In evaluating the answer choices, we can continue to use that framework and look for four more applications of the general principle. Alternatively, we can use the framework of analogies. We’re on the lookout for four analogous situations. On what grounds do we judge how analogous the new situations are to the existing one? In other words, what counts as “relevant similarity”? How well the new situations conform to the causal principle. The two frameworks converge.

Answer Choice (A) says a math teacher (1) wants her students to understand the mathematical principles taught in her course and (2) wants them to apply these principles routinely in everyday life. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

If a math teacher is successful in getting her students to understand the principles of geometry, algebra, or statistics, then that will have a positive causal impact on their applying those principles in everyday life.

Answer Choice (B) says a software manufacturer (1) wants its customers to be more satisfied with the product and (2) wants them to place fewer calls to the service representative about how to use the product. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

If the software manufacturer is successful in getting its customers to be more satisfied with the product, then its customers will be less likely to place calls about how to use it. There are many ways in which one can be unsatisfied with a product, of course, but one of those ways is not understanding how to use the product, which leads to (causes) customer support calls. If overall satisfaction is improved, then the problem of not understanding how to use the product will be mitigated to some degree. Whatever that level of improvement is should lead to (cause) fewer customer support calls.

Answer Choice (C) says a librarian (1) wants fewer of the books borrowed from the library to be lost or stolen, and he also (2) wants more of the books to be returned on time. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

Of the entire set of books that are borrowed, some of them are lost and some of them are stolen. Lost is accidental whereas stolen is intentional. If the librarian is successful in reducing the number of lost or stolen books, then it is very likely that that will cause more books to be returned on time. Why? Because it’s precisely the books that would otherwise have been lost or stolen (which guarantees that they won’t be returned on time) that will now be returned on time.

Correct Answer Choice (D) says a hardware retail company (1) wants to construct a new, larger warehouse, and it also (2) wants its employees to help plan how the old warehouse will be expanded. This is not analogous. This is not an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

The first objective and the second are disconnected, and hence success in meeting the first has no causal bearing on success in meeting the second.

Success in meeting the first objective seems just as likely to have a positively causal impact on the second objective as it is to have a negative causal impact.

Imagine the first objective is successfully achieved. Congrats. You built a new, larger warehouse. How does that impact your second objective? I don't know. It could be positive or negative.

Maybe the old employees from the original warehouse are like, “I am revitalized with energy to make this work because we can't have the crew at the new warehouse show us up. We'd better do a really good job of expanding the old warehouse.”

But maybe the old employees are instead demoralized. They look at the second, new, larger warehouse and they don’t see why they need to do a good job planning the expansion of their current warehouse.

Answer Choice (E) says a concert series director (1) wants to present a more varied repertoire and (2) wants to attract new patrons. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

If the director is successful in presenting a more varied repertoire (doing stuff that they haven't done before, new stuff), then it seems reasonably likely that they’ll attract (cause) new patrons (people who didn't come to the concert before because the repertoire was narrow).

21 comments

This is a Miscellaneous question.

According to the question stem, the analysis portion of the stimulus applies to the situation portion of the stimulus in the same appropriate way that would also apply to four of the answer choices. Note the word “EXCEPT” in the stem.

The question tests reasoning by analogy, reasoning from principle to application, and causal reasoning.

The situation is that a physical therapist (1) wants her patients to derive more enjoyment from the challenge of developing physical skills. She also (2) wants them to spend more time practicing those skills.

The analysis says success in meeting the first objective (derive enjoyment) will bring about success in meeting the second objective (spend more time).

The analysis seems appropriate for the situation as along as we make the (quite reasonable) assumption that enjoyment of an activity causes more time to be spent on that activity. If we view that causal assumption (extracted from the analysis) as a principle, then the situation can be viewed as an application of that principle. The analysis itself is a more general version of that causal principle.

In evaluating the answer choices, we can continue to use that framework and look for four more applications of the general principle. Alternatively, we can use the framework of analogies. We’re on the lookout for four analogous situations. On what grounds do we judge how analogous the new situations are to the existing one? In other words, what counts as “relevant similarity”? How well the new situations conform to the causal principle. The two frameworks converge.

Answer Choice (A) says a math teacher (1) wants her students to understand the mathematical principles taught in her course and (2) wants them to apply these principles routinely in everyday life. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

If a math teacher is successful in getting her students to understand the principles of geometry, algebra, or statistics, then that will have a positive causal impact on their applying those principles in everyday life.

Answer Choice (B) says a software manufacturer (1) wants its customers to be more satisfied with the product and (2) wants them to place fewer calls to the service representative about how to use the product. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

If the software manufacturer is successful in getting its customers to be more satisfied with the product, then its customers will be less likely to place calls about how to use it. There are many ways in which one can be unsatisfied with a product, of course, but one of those ways is not understanding how to use the product, which leads to (causes) customer support calls. If overall satisfaction is improved, then the problem of not understanding how to use the product will be mitigated to some degree. Whatever that level of improvement is should lead to (cause) fewer customer support calls.

Answer Choice (C) says a librarian (1) wants fewer of the books borrowed from the library to be lost or stolen, and he also (2) wants more of the books to be returned on time. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

Of the entire set of books that are borrowed, some of them are lost and some of them are stolen. Lost is accidental whereas stolen is intentional. If the librarian is successful in reducing the number of lost or stolen books, then it is very likely that that will cause more books to be returned on time. Why? Because it’s precisely the books that would otherwise have been lost or stolen (which guarantees that they won’t be returned on time) that will now be returned on time.

Correct Answer Choice (D) says a hardware retail company (1) wants to construct a new, larger warehouse, and it also (2) wants its employees to help plan how the old warehouse will be expanded. This is not analogous. This is not an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

The first objective and the second are disconnected, and hence success in meeting the first has no causal bearing on success in meeting the second.

Success in meeting the first objective seems just as likely to have a positively causal impact on the second objective as it is to have a negative causal impact.

Imagine the first objective is successfully achieved. Congrats. You built a new, larger warehouse. How does that impact your second objective? I don't know. It could be positive or negative.

Maybe the old employees from the original warehouse are like, “I am revitalized with energy to make this work because we can't have the crew at the new warehouse show us up. We'd better do a really good job of expanding the old warehouse.”

But maybe the old employees are instead demoralized. They look at the second, new, larger warehouse and they don’t see why they need to do a good job planning the expansion of their current warehouse.

Answer Choice (E) says a concert series director (1) wants to present a more varied repertoire and (2) wants to attract new patrons. This is analogous. This is an appropriate application of the causal principle in the analysis.

If the director is successful in presenting a more varied repertoire (doing stuff that they haven't done before, new stuff), then it seems reasonably likely that they’ll attract (cause) new patrons (people who didn't come to the concert before because the repertoire was narrow).

26 comments

This is an NA question.

The stimulus opens with context that the premises call upon with a referential phrase. To establish a human colony on Mars, it requires the presence of a tremendous quantity of basic materials on Mars. And then we need to assemble those materials. The premise states that the costs of transporting those materials through space would be very high. Therefore, the argument concludes that it wouldn’t be economically feasible to establish a colony on Mars.

The assumption is that the costs in the premises are a consideration that matters. What are those costs again? Costs of “transporting material through space.” Now, why would we need to transport materials through space? Because a Martian colony requires a tremendous amount of basic materials. But again, why must we transport that “tremendous amount of basic materials” through space? The assumption is that those materials cannot be found on Mars.

This is absolutely necessary for the premises to even matter to the conclusion. This is what Correct Answer Choice (E) says. That Mars isn’t a practical source of the basic materials required for establishing human habitation there. If Mars were, then there’d be no need to transport those materials through space.

(E) seems pretty obvious once you get there. But the hard part is in getting past the other trap answers.

Answer Choice (A) is one such trap. It uses “only if” to lay out a necessary condition for establishing human habitation on Mars: the decrease in cost of transporting materials from Earth to Mars. This sounds good but it isn’t necessary. First, note that the conclusion didn’t claim that it would be physically impossible to colonize Mars. Rather, just that it would be economically infeasible. Economically infeasible means highly unlikely, but it doesn’t mean impossible. Economic constraints are softer than physical or technological constraints. Economic constraints are a matter of collective resource allocation. Physical or technological constraints are imposed by what knowledge we have access to. Second, note that the premises cited the costs of transportation through space. Surely Earth to Mars is through space but so is the moon to Mars. And so is the asteroid belt to Mars. If the materials aren’t even coming from Earth in the first place, then why should we care about the transportation costs of Earth to Mars?

Answer Choice (B) is another trap. It says that the cost of transportation through space (note already the improvement upon (A)) isn’t expected to decrease in the near future. Again, this sounds good. Don’t we need the costs to not decrease? Well, first notice that (B) isn’t about what will actually happen to the costs. It’s about what we expect to happen to the costs. We don’t need expectations to point in any particular direction. We need actual costs to not decrease. Second, even if actual costs decrease in the near future, the argument can still survive as long as the costs don’t decrease too much. For example, imagine if the costs decrease by 0.01%. That’s presumably not enough of a decrease to make a difference. In order to hurt the argument, we need to have the costs decrease to the point of being economically feasible to transport enough basic materials to Mars.

Answer Choice (C) claims that Earth is the only source of basic materials necessary for a Martian colony. This is a classic Strengthen answer in an NA question. If (C) were true, then that definitely helps the argument. Earth is the only source of raw materials and therefore, to get those materials to Mars, we must transport them through space. But this isn’t necessary. What if one of Mars' two moons had the requisite materials? That would still require transportation through space and so the argument would still survive. (C) isn’t necessary.

Answer Choice (D) says that no significant benefit would result from establishing a human colony on Mars. This isn’t necessary. The argument didn’t express a value judgment. It wasn’t about the pros and cons of establishing a Mars colony or whether we should do it. It was just an argument about the costs and economic feasibility of such an endeavor. (D) is not only unnecessary, it is also irrelevant.

9 comments

This is an NA question.

The stimulus opens with context that the premises call upon with a referential phrase. To establish a human colony on Mars, it requires the presence of a tremendous quantity of basic materials on Mars. And then we need to assemble those materials. The premise states that the costs of transporting those materials through space would be very high. Therefore, the argument concludes that it wouldn’t be economically feasible to establish a colony on Mars.

The assumption is that the costs in the premises are a consideration that matters. What are those costs again? Costs of “transporting material through space.” Now, why would we need to transport materials through space? Because a Martian colony requires a tremendous amount of basic materials. But again, why must we transport that “tremendous amount of basic materials” through space? The assumption is that those materials cannot be found on Mars.

This is absolutely necessary for the premises to even matter to the conclusion. This is what Correct Answer Choice (E) says. That Mars isn’t a practical source of the basic materials required for establishing human habitation there. If Mars were, then there’d be no need to transport those materials through space.

(E) seems pretty obvious once you get there. But the hard part is in getting past the other trap answers.

Answer Choice (A) is one such trap. It uses “only if” to lay out a necessary condition for establishing human habitation on Mars: the decrease in cost of transporting materials from Earth to Mars. This sounds good but it isn’t necessary. First, note that the conclusion didn’t claim that it would be physically impossible to colonize Mars. Rather, just that it would be economically infeasible. Economically infeasible means highly unlikely, but it doesn’t mean impossible. Economic constraints are softer than physical or technological constraints. Economic constraints are a matter of collective resource allocation. Physical or technological constraints are imposed by what knowledge we have access to. Second, note that the premises cited the costs of transportation through space. Surely Earth to Mars is through space but so is the moon to Mars. And so is the asteroid belt to Mars. If the materials aren’t even coming from Earth in the first place, then why should we care about the transportation costs of Earth to Mars?

Answer Choice (B) is another trap. It says that the cost of transportation through space (note already the improvement upon (A)) isn’t expected to decrease in the near future. Again, this sounds good. Don’t we need the costs to not decrease? Well, first notice that (B) isn’t about what will actually happen to the costs. It’s about what we expect to happen to the costs. We don’t need expectations to point in any particular direction. We need actual costs to not decrease. Second, even if actual costs decrease in the near future, the argument can still survive as long as the costs don’t decrease too much. For example, imagine if the costs decrease by 0.01%. That’s presumably not enough of a decrease to make a difference. In order to hurt the argument, we need to have the costs decrease to the point of being economically feasible to transport enough basic materials to Mars.

Answer Choice (C) claims that Earth is the only source of basic materials necessary for a Martian colony. This is a classic Strengthen answer in an NA question. If (C) were true, then that definitely helps the argument. Earth is the only source of raw materials and therefore, to get those materials to Mars, we must transport them through space. But this isn’t necessary. What if one of Mars' two moons had the requisite materials? That would still require transportation through space and so the argument would still survive. (C) isn’t necessary.

Answer Choice (D) says that no significant benefit would result from establishing a human colony on Mars. This isn’t necessary. The argument didn’t express a value judgment. It wasn’t about the pros and cons of establishing a Mars colony or whether we should do it. It was just an argument about the costs and economic feasibility of such an endeavor. (D) is not only unnecessary, it is also irrelevant.

14 comments

This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.

The stimulus begins with a premise about a “new experimental curriculum” that a plumbing school has been using “for several years.” Then it says that a survey last year found that only 33% of the school’s graduates passed the certification exam, and that 33% is not good because the national average is “well above” that. Those are the premises. From those premises, the conclusion claims that the new curriculum has “lowered the quality of plumbing instruction.”

What?

Where did we encounter a decrease in the quality of plumbing instruction? We only have one static data point. We need at least two data points to show change. What was the pass rate last year and the year before? Was it higher? If it was higher than 33%, then maybe instruction has declined. But if it was lower, then maybe instruction has improved. That’s a major issue in this argument.

The only evidence we have from the argument, the results of the exam, shows that there’s something subpar about the plumbing school. It likely has something to do with the quality of the instruction. But there could also be other causal forces at work. Maybe its students. Maybe the school was severely damaged last year in a catastrophic fire.

Okay, so if you spot the weakness, you’re almost there. You still have to jump over the hurdle of the abstractly worded answers.

And it starts with the worst offender, Answer Choice (A). Just look at it. It says the argument is flawed because it treats a phenomenon as an effect of an observed change in the face of evidence indicating that it may be the cause of that change. The quick way to eliminate (A) is to recognize that this is a cause-effect confusion flaw, a commonly recurring flaw in LR. But it’s not what’s happening here, as we discussed above. The mistakes here are (1) confusing static (no change) with dynamic (change) and (2) misattributed cause.

The slow and thorough method involves lassoing the abstract language in (A) to the tangible concrete language in the stimulus. How do we do that? We can begin by looking at “treats a phenomenon as an effect of an observed change.” What is the argument treating as an effect? The decreased quality of plumbing instruction. So that must be the phenomenon. And it’s treating that as the effect of “an observed change,” which must be the adoption of the new curriculum. But wait, is that really a “change?” The curriculum has been in place for several years already. This is already looking to be descriptively inaccurate.

Let’s keep going. How about “in the face of evidence indicating that decreased quality of plumbing instruction may be the cause of adoption of the new curriculum”? What evidence? This is also descriptively inaccurate. The only evidence we have from the stimulus is that something isn’t up to snuff about the school. There’s no evidence that the school saw a sharp drop in its quality of instruction and then decided that they needed to fix this by adopting a new curriculum.

Answer Choice (B) says that the argument uses a lack of evidence that the quality of the school’s plumbing instruction has increased as though it were conclusive evidence that it has decreased. No, it doesn’t. It’s true that there is a lack of evidence of increase. But that’s not what the argument uses. The argument uses the presence of static evidence, the 33% pass rates, as if it were evidence of change. Also descriptively inaccurate.

Correct Answer Choice (C) can, fortunately, be analyzed in terms of premise descriptor and conclusion descriptor. It says that the argument “concludes that something has diminished in quality…” and indeed this is descriptively accurate. The argument concludes that the plumbing instruction has decreased in quality. “From evidence indicating that [plumbing instruction] is of below-average quality.” This is an accurate description of the premises. The evidence is the 33% pass rates. Does that indicate that plumbing instruction is of below-average quality? Not definitively, as I already noted above, but evidence doesn’t have to be definitive. And this is evidence of poor instruction. (C) also captures the move from static (low-quality instruction) to dynamic (decreased quality) that’s at the heart of this bad argument.

Answer Choice (D) says that the argument uses a national average as a standard without specifying what that national average is. This is true! Descriptively accurate! But it doesn’t matter because the argument isn’t weak for failing to specify just how many percentage points below the national average is “well below.” Imagine if the argument had told us what the national average was. Say it was 50%. The school’s pass rate is 33%, which is “well below.” Okay, is the argument better now? No. Because that was never the issue. Imagine again that the national average was 75%. The school’s pass rate is 33%, again “well below.” Is the argument better now? Or is the argument even substantively different now? No and no, because it doesn’t matter precisely how much below is “well below.”

Answer Choice (E) says that the argument confuses a “required” factor with a “sufficient” factor. This is the classic sufficiency-necessity confusion. That’s the oldest mistake in the book. That’s not what’s happening here. We’d have to do major reconstructive surgery on the argument for (E) to be right. We’d have to argue that the quality of a school’s curriculum is essential in the improvement of their graduates' pass rates on the national exam. Therefore, a school can expect to see improvements in pass rates simply by adopting a quality curriculum. That would be mistaking a necessary factor with a sufficient factor.

3 comments

This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.

The stimulus begins with a premise about a “new experimental curriculum” that a plumbing school has been using “for several years.” Then it says that a survey last year found that only 33% of the school’s graduates passed the certification exam, and that 33% is not good because the national average is “well above” that. Those are the premises. From those premises, the conclusion claims that the new curriculum has “lowered the quality of plumbing instruction.”

What?

Where did we encounter a decrease in the quality of plumbing instruction? We only have one static data point. We need at least two data points to show change. What was the pass rate last year and the year before? Was it higher? If it was higher than 33%, then maybe instruction has declined. But if it was lower, then maybe instruction has improved. That’s a major issue in this argument.

The only evidence we have from the argument, the results of the exam, shows that there’s something subpar about the plumbing school. It likely has something to do with the quality of the instruction. But there could also be other causal forces at work. Maybe its students. Maybe the school was severely damaged last year in a catastrophic fire.

Okay, so if you spot the weakness, you’re almost there. You still have to jump over the hurdle of the abstractly worded answers.

And it starts with the worst offender, Answer Choice (A). Just look at it. It says the argument is flawed because it treats a phenomenon as an effect of an observed change in the face of evidence indicating that it may be the cause of that change. The quick way to eliminate (A) is to recognize that this is a cause-effect confusion flaw, a commonly recurring flaw in LR. But it’s not what’s happening here, as we discussed above. The mistakes here are (1) confusing static (no change) with dynamic (change) and (2) misattributed cause.

The slow and thorough method involves lassoing the abstract language in (A) to the tangible concrete language in the stimulus. How do we do that? We can begin by looking at “treats a phenomenon as an effect of an observed change.” What is the argument treating as an effect? The decreased quality of plumbing instruction. So that must be the phenomenon. And it’s treating that as the effect of “an observed change,” which must be the adoption of the new curriculum. But wait, is that really a “change?” The curriculum has been in place for several years already. This is already looking to be descriptively inaccurate.

Let’s keep going. How about “in the face of evidence indicating that decreased quality of plumbing instruction may be the cause of adoption of the new curriculum”? What evidence? This is also descriptively inaccurate. The only evidence we have from the stimulus is that something isn’t up to snuff about the school. There’s no evidence that the school saw a sharp drop in its quality of instruction and then decided that they needed to fix this by adopting a new curriculum.

Answer Choice (B) says that the argument uses a lack of evidence that the quality of the school’s plumbing instruction has increased as though it were conclusive evidence that it has decreased. No, it doesn’t. It’s true that there is a lack of evidence of increase. But that’s not what the argument uses. The argument uses the presence of static evidence, the 33% pass rates, as if it were evidence of change. Also descriptively inaccurate.

Correct Answer Choice (C) can, fortunately, be analyzed in terms of premise descriptor and conclusion descriptor. It says that the argument “concludes that something has diminished in quality…” and indeed this is descriptively accurate. The argument concludes that the plumbing instruction has decreased in quality. “From evidence indicating that [plumbing instruction] is of below-average quality.” This is an accurate description of the premises. The evidence is the 33% pass rates. Does that indicate that plumbing instruction is of below-average quality? Not definitively, as I already noted above, but evidence doesn’t have to be definitive. And this is evidence of poor instruction. (C) also captures the move from static (low-quality instruction) to dynamic (decreased quality) that’s at the heart of this bad argument.

Answer Choice (D) says that the argument uses a national average as a standard without specifying what that national average is. This is true! Descriptively accurate! But it doesn’t matter because the argument isn’t weak for failing to specify just how many percentage points below the national average is “well below.” Imagine if the argument had told us what the national average was. Say it was 50%. The school’s pass rate is 33%, which is “well below.” Okay, is the argument better now? No. Because that was never the issue. Imagine again that the national average was 75%. The school’s pass rate is 33%, again “well below.” Is the argument better now? Or is the argument even substantively different now? No and no, because it doesn’t matter precisely how much below is “well below.”

Answer Choice (E) says that the argument confuses a “required” factor with a “sufficient” factor. This is the classic sufficiency-necessity confusion. That’s the oldest mistake in the book. That’s not what’s happening here. We’d have to do major reconstructive surgery on the argument for (E) to be right. We’d have to argue that the quality of a school’s curriculum is essential in the improvement of their graduates' pass rates on the national exam. Therefore, a school can expect to see improvements in pass rates simply by adopting a quality curriculum. That would be mistaking a necessary factor with a sufficient factor.

19 comments

This is a PSA question.

Mateo says global warming has caused permafrost to melt under several arctic villages, forcing all of their inhabitants to relocate at great expense. Then he says that pollution from automobiles is a major contributor to global warming (another premise). Now he's given us a causal chain starting with automobiles and leading to pollution, then global warming, then melting permafrost, and finally, expensive relocation. Here comes the conclusion: the automotive industry should be required to help pay for the villagers' relocation. We have descriptive causal premises leading to a prescriptive conclusion.

In PSA questions, we have the premise (P) and the conclusion (C) and are generally looking for a P → C "rule." And the reason the question stem includes the word "principle" is that the P → C could be stated in terms more general than what you see in the answer choices. And there is a large degree of freedom in how general they will be.

For example, the correct answer could generalize a lot and say any "entity" whose "actions" have some negative consequence must pay for the cost of that consequence. You can take this general principle and apply it to this argument, but you can also apply it to a bunch of other arguments. The correct answer could generalize less and say if an "industrial product" has some negative downstream consequences, then the "manufacturer" must pay to cover the costs of those consequences. This one would apply to a smaller set of arguments than the more generalized principle of entities.

Most PSA questions lay out recurring traps. We find one such trap, that of starting the bridge at the conclusion in Answer Choice (E). It says an industry that contributes to global warming should be required to pay for resulting damage to specific communities only if it has a general obligation to help pay for all damage produced by global warming.

An industry being required to pay is the desired conclusion. So that concept cannot be in the sufficient condition. At best, this rule allows the stimulus to fail the necessary condition (say we had a premise that amounted to the auto industry not having a general obligation to help pay for all damage), therefore concluding the failure of the sufficient (auto industry should not be required to pay for damage to specific communities). That's not what we want. This answer choice is logically wrong.

(E) would have been correct if it said an industry that contributes to global warming should be required to help pay for resulting damage to specific communities, full stop.

Correct Answer Choice (D) says any industry manufacturing a product whose use contributes to costly damage for others should be liable for damages generated by that product's use. This is the P → C rule. The information in our premise triggers the sufficient conditions: any industry (automobile) manufacturing a product (cars) whose use contributes to costly damage (melting-permafrost-induced relocation) for others (arctic villagers). Hence, we can draw the necessary condition as the conclusion: the automotive industry should be liable for damages.

Answer Choice (A) says any industry has an obligation to pay for any damage that it should have known would result from its activities. (A) is pretty good if you strike out “it should have known.” But as it stands, that condition doesn't match the premise and so the sufficient condition in (A) does not trigger. While it might be common sense that cars generate pollution, the long causal chain in the stimulus makes it less reasonable to say that the automotive industry should have known about the results of their activities on arctic villages. (A) exhibits the recurring defect of starting the bridge at the wrong location.

Answer Choice (B) says manufacturers should be required to produce goods in a way that minimizes harm to people and the environment. (B) just tells the automotive industry to change the way it produces cars, but does not help the villagers get paid. This rule delivers the wrong results. Also a recurring defect.

Answer Choice (C) says when the use of a product causes damages, governments should not be required to pay for the damage unless those responsible for manufacturing the product are also required to pay. (C) is saying that if the government is required to pay, then it must be that manufacturing is required to pay. Or, contrapositive, if the manufacturer isn't required to pay, then neither is the government.

This is a strange principle to talk about when you are trying to get arctic villagers paid. Maybe (C) thinks Mateo’s next argument is to petition the government to compensate these villagers, and it is saying that if you want the government to pay, you must first establish that manufacturing has to pay. How bizarre.

This rule also exhibits the recurring defects of failing to match the premise and failing to match the conclusion.

2 comments

This is a PSA question.

Mateo says global warming has caused permafrost to melt under several arctic villages, forcing all of their inhabitants to relocate at great expense. Then he says that pollution from automobiles is a major contributor to global warming (another premise). Now he's given us a causal chain starting with automobiles and leading to pollution, then global warming, then melting permafrost, and finally, expensive relocation. Here comes the conclusion: the automotive industry should be required to help pay for the villagers' relocation. We have descriptive causal premises leading to a prescriptive conclusion.

In PSA questions, we have the premise (P) and the conclusion (C) and are generally looking for a P → C "rule." And the reason the question stem includes the word "principle" is that the P → C could be stated in terms more general than what you see in the answer choices. And there is a large degree of freedom in how general they will be.

For example, the correct answer could generalize a lot and say any "entity" whose "actions" have some negative consequence must pay for the cost of that consequence. You can take this general principle and apply it to this argument, but you can also apply it to a bunch of other arguments. The correct answer could generalize less and say if an "industrial product" has some negative downstream consequences, then the "manufacturer" must pay to cover the costs of those consequences. This one would apply to a smaller set of arguments than the more generalized principle of entities.

Most PSA questions lay out recurring traps. We find one such trap, that of starting the bridge at the conclusion in Answer Choice (E). It says an industry that contributes to global warming should be required to pay for resulting damage to specific communities only if it has a general obligation to help pay for all damage produced by global warming.

An industry being required to pay is the desired conclusion. So that concept cannot be in the sufficient condition. At best, this rule allows the stimulus to fail the necessary condition (say we had a premise that amounted to the auto industry not having a general obligation to help pay for all damage), therefore concluding the failure of the sufficient (auto industry should not be required to pay for damage to specific communities). That's not what we want. This answer choice is logically wrong.

(E) would have been correct if it said an industry that contributes to global warming should be required to help pay for resulting damage to specific communities, full stop.

Correct Answer Choice (D) says any industry manufacturing a product whose use contributes to costly damage for others should be liable for damages generated by that product's use. This is the P → C rule. The information in our premise triggers the sufficient conditions: any industry (automobile) manufacturing a product (cars) whose use contributes to costly damage (melting-permafrost-induced relocation) for others (arctic villagers). Hence, we can draw the necessary condition as the conclusion: the automotive industry should be liable for damages.

Answer Choice (A) says any industry has an obligation to pay for any damage that it should have known would result from its activities. (A) is pretty good if you strike out “it should have known.” But as it stands, that condition doesn't match the premise and so the sufficient condition in (A) does not trigger. While it might be common sense that cars generate pollution, the long causal chain in the stimulus makes it less reasonable to say that the automotive industry should have known about the results of their activities on arctic villages. (A) exhibits the recurring defect of starting the bridge at the wrong location.

Answer Choice (B) says manufacturers should be required to produce goods in a way that minimizes harm to people and the environment. (B) just tells the automotive industry to change the way it produces cars, but does not help the villagers get paid. This rule delivers the wrong results. Also a recurring defect.

Answer Choice (C) says when the use of a product causes damages, governments should not be required to pay for the damage unless those responsible for manufacturing the product are also required to pay. (C) is saying that if the government is required to pay, then it must be that manufacturing is required to pay. Or, contrapositive, if the manufacturer isn't required to pay, then neither is the government.

This is a strange principle to talk about when you are trying to get arctic villagers paid. Maybe (C) thinks Mateo’s next argument is to petition the government to compensate these villagers, and it is saying that if you want the government to pay, you must first establish that manufacturing has to pay. How bizarre.

This rule also exhibits the recurring defects of failing to match the premise and failing to match the conclusion.

2 comments

5 comments

5 comments