Q11 - Carl: Researchers who preform operations

[lhermary]

What analogy is answer B speaking of? I was originally going to pick B but this didn't seem to fit in.

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

Carl analogizes operations between animals and humans. He basically says since it is done a certain for way for animals, yet not for humans. The conclusion he reaches is a conditional.

Lawmakers were as concerned about humans at they seem about animals ---> would be pain protocols


Debbie points out that Carl does not present a great analogy because operations with humans and animals are not similar.

Answer choices:

A) She does not attack a premise of his. She would have done something like, "Researchers aren't required to complete protocols, etc." She accepts his premises, just not his conclusion!

B) She does show a difference in operations for humans and animals. Carl does have his conclusion based on this analogy.

C) She does not claim Carl used emotional appeal.

D) She does not use an analogy in countering Carl's argument.

E) She does not state that Carl has a claim that can be neither confirmed nor disproved.[url][/url]

[giladedelman]

Excellent explanation!

[bearknowsthetrooth]

I'm still confused about why this is an analogy (it just seems like a regular comparison to me.) I always thought in an analogy, two things had to have certain elements that were analogous or parallel. If this is an analogy, then what is the difference between an analogy and a simple comparison?

[rinagoldfield]

I'm still confused about why this is an analogy (it just seems like a regular comparison to me.) I always thought in an analogy, two things had to have certain elements that were analogous or parallel. If this is an analogy, then what is the difference between an analogy and a simple comparison?

Hi bearknowsthetrooth. Great question.

You’re right that analogies compare parallel elements. They reveal and require similarities between the items being compared. Not all comparisons do this, but analogies are examples of comparisons.

Carl identifies parallels between human operations and animal testing, and argues that the procedures are analogous. Debbie disagrees, and implies that the procedures are not analogous.

Carl sees an analogy where Debbie sees a simple comparison. Carl sees parallels where Debbie doesn't.

Does this make sense?

[btwalden]

I find this question very difficult because Carl does not actually make an analogy.

The sentence that brings up humans makes it seem as though an analogy is going to be made however the following sentence simply make a statement that suggesting that law makers are not as concerned about humans as they are animals.

However, no where in the text does he actually compare humans and animals. He simply makes statements about the differences and then a conclusion extrapolating form the differences.

I honestly thought it was a typo on the answer key...

[uhdang]

Analogy in B) basically generates something like this:

1) Just as animals have pain protocols when undergoing operations,
2) human beings should also have pain protocols when undergoing operations.

Short summaries of Carl's point, 1) and 2), are using the same logical conditions for different subjects, and this for me is what an analogy does.

And Carl is making his argument using this analogy while Debbie is pointing out a different applications for specified subjects that undermines Carl's argument. And this makes B) a correct answer choice.

[btwalden]

Short summaries of Carl's point, 1) and 2), are using the same logical conditions for different subjects, and this for me is what an analogy does.

Yep, Carl definitely makes statements about both humans and animals in regards to the same subject; and it definitely seems like a build up to an analogy between them. However he never actually compares animals and humans.

B. could definitely be concluded as the answer by process of elimination, but the lack of a true analogy makes it more difficult.

[uhdang]

Short summaries of Carl's point, 1) and 2), are using the same logical conditions for different subjects, and this for me is what an analogy does.

Yep, Carl definitely makes statements about both humans and animals in regards to the same subject; and it definitely seems like a build up to an analogy between them.

B. could definitely be concluded as the answer by process of elimination, but the lack of a true analogy makes it more difficult.

So, the fact that Carl never actually compares animals and human bothers you.
Well, when I look at Carl's statement, I see Carl's analogy of comparing,
1) animals in a matter of requiring pain protocols with
2) humans in a matter of requiring pain protocols.
Thus, he seems to be comparing animals and humans, while satisfying his statement as an analogy with same logical condition with different subjects

B) reads, "pointing out a relevant difference to undermine an analogy on which Carl bases his conclusion "

Debbie points out a relevant difference (between animals and humans, regarding the fact that humans can be told to expect what level of pain they will be experiencing and choose to undergo the operation or not while animals can't) to undermine an analogy (animals require pain protocols, but humans don't have them.) on which Carl bases his conclusion ("If lawmakers were as concerned about human beings as they seem to be about animals, there would be pain protocols for human beings too.")

What does it mean for you to be "comparing" two things?

[rinagoldfield]

Uhdang, I essentially agree with you. This "analogy" described in (B) is essentially a comparison. Carl does indeed make a comparison, and uses comparison words such as "as," "too," etc.

[keonheecho]

Hi, I have a question about answer choice (A). When (A) refers to "claims", does this apply to both implicit (assumptions) and explicit claims? Or only explicit? I don't remember the particular question, but I remember for one method of reasoning question I encountered, an answer choice was correct because it mentioned that the particular stimulus weakened an assumption of a different argument. The answer choice, like this one, said that it weakened a claim, without specifying whether it was explicit/implicit. But isn't Debbie's argument weakening an implicit claim that Carl makes, that humans and animals are not different in a way that makes differing protocols acceptable? And if this is the case, wouldnt it make (A) a possible answer choice? I hope this question makes sense...lol.

[uhdang]

Hi, I have a question about answer choice (A). When (A) refers to "claims", does this apply to both implicit (assumptions) and explicit claims? Or only explicit? I don't remember the particular question, but I remember for one method of reasoning question I encountered, an answer choice was correct because it mentioned that the particular stimulus weakened an assumption of a different argument. The answer choice, like this one, said that it weakened a claim, without specifying whether it was explicit/implicit. But isn't Debbie's argument weakening an implicit claim that Carl makes, that humans and animals are not different in a way that makes differing protocols acceptable? And if this is the case, wouldnt it make (A) a possible answer choice? I hope this question makes sense...lol.

First of all, regarding your question about "claims", I believe they are just referring to premises that Carl bases on for his conclusion. I don't think he is referring to an implicit premise.

I don't know which question you are referring to, but I'm guessing that "weakening" was an issue because the question stem was asking for how one person countered the other, just like in this question. But, if it was a "method of reasoning" question, the real focus, or what the question was asking you for, must have been HOW weakening, or countering, was done. So, I don't think you can apply 'weakening' issue to other method of reasoning questions other than those with "counter" in the question stem.

Regarding your assumption from Carl, "that humans and animals are not different in a way that makes differing protocols acceptable", this assumption itself is the flaw from Carl's part and, since Debbie does point out that humans and animals are in fact different, if there was an answer choice that points out this flaw, I think it could be a correct answer. (which, in a way, is what B) is demonstrating in different wording) But I don't think we can say A) points out this flaw.

[btwalden]

.
Well, when I look at Carl's statement, I see Carl's analogy of comparing,
1) animals in a matter of requiring pain protocols with
2) humans in a matter of requiring pain protocols.

He makes statements about both these things but doesn't actually compare them. It seems really obvious that he implies a comparison but he doesn't actually compare them himself, so he isn't making an analogy. He simply says "IF law makers were as concerned about humans beings as they seem to be about animals, there would be pain protocols for humans beings too." This is an "if...then" type statement. He isn't actually making a declaration about the relative quality of the concern.

Still the "best" answer even if flawed.

[Jkpt2016]

Hi,

I'm pretty far along in my studies at this point and can understand why most of my wrong answers are wrong but I am having a hard time reconciling the the definitions of examples vs analogies in this question vs question 53.3.24. I have read the whole thread for both questions and still don't feel I can adequately grasp the difference.

Any help with clarification on this issue would be much appreciated, thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

“examples” are on a lower hierarchical level than the general claim they’re illustrating.

General claim: “animals hate feeling pain”

examples: “Lions hate it when you yank their manes.” “Dogs hate it when you yank their ears. “Humans hate it when you punch their noses.”

analogies: “just as lions hate it when you yank on their manes, so too would humans hate it if you punched their noses.”

To be an example, you should be one specific set of details, illustrating a general claim.

To make an analogy, you need TWO specific sets of details, both of which are supposed to embody the same general claim/logic/assessment.

(50 varieties of soda vs. 5 different types of beverages … is a specific set of details illustrating the general claim that "freedom can't be measured merely by the number of choices")

(animals are getting surgery and humans are getting surgery ... two specific sets of details, both of which are supposed to connect with the general claim of "There should be a pain protocol")

[BarryM800]

I understand this question, but am at a loss of the context. Carl talks about medical experiment on animals. Whether such animals are healthy or diseased, such operations (surgeries) will be performed for scientific purposes. It's just that humanitarian concerns require us to alleviate pain. Then, he analogizes it to human beings and calls for similar protocols to alleviate pain.

Debbie talks about a situation where human beings can opt out operations based on the severity of pain informed by doctors, regardless of whether such operations are experimental (which might not be necessary as in trial procedures for volunteers) or recommended to address underlying medical conditions. But she totally ignores the essence of Carl's claim - to alleviate pain when under operations. I just felt that they are not talking about the same thing, or am I missing some common sense here? Thanks!

[Laura Damone]

Here's how I would describe Carl's argument: He tells us about pain protocols for research animals. Then he draws a conclusion about pain protocols for humans. He's thus assuming that our situation is analogous to that of research animals. Debbie attacks this assumption by pointing out a relevant difference: informed consent! We are capable of making an informed choice to undergo surgery. Research animals are not. Thus, she concludes, pain protocols are unnecessary for humans.