Q12 - Commentator: The Duke of Acredia argued long ago

[melanieblnco]

Can someone please explain why B is incorrect? It pairs up nicely with D, in my opinion, and the only issue I see with it is the possibility of "has always led to failure" being too strong but I am not sure if I am missing the main issue with B.


Thanks in advance!

[kjsmit02]

Can someone please explain why B is incorrect? It pairs up nicely with D, in my opinion, and the only issue I see with it is the possibility of "has always led to failure" being too strong but I am not sure if I am missing the main issue with B.


Thanks in advance!

I'll take a wack at it [Looking for the pros out there to confirm my reasoning!]

So we have the following conditional relationships:
1st Sentence (Premise): rule successfully [RS] ---------> virtuous ruler concerned with well-being [CWB]
2nd Sentence (Premise): When governments have fallen aka [~RS]--------> rule under one who viciously disregards people [~CWB]
3rd Sentence (Conclusion): Successful Gov. [RS] --------> [CWB] Concern for wellfare of people

aka

1st: RS ------>CWB
2nd: ~RS ------>~CWB
3rd: RS ------>CW

When looking at the problem, we can see already that the 2nd conditional relationship is the inverse of the first conditional relationship, and therefore has an error in conditional logic. The author uses this erroneous conditional relationship in the 2nd sentence to strengthen the reasoning for the first sentence, ultimately concluding that this reasoning is correct and reiterating so in the conclusion. So when looking at the answers, we should focus on the faulty inverse conditional relationship he uses to justify his conclusion.

When looking at (B), the author actually doesn't do this at all. If he did, it's look like this:
Infers the necessity of a condition [CWB] for success [RS] from the fact that it's absence [~CWB] has led to [~RS]
Conditionally: Infers RS ------>CWB from ~CWB -------> ~RS
But we see that if the author did this, his reasoning would in fact be correct, as this is simply the contrapositive and is logically valid. So therefore, (B) can be eliminated

(D) in the other hand focuses on the logically invalid inverse relationship between the 2nd premise and the author's conclusion.:
Infers RS ------>CWB from ~RS ------>~CWB

While (B) states the contrapositive, which is logically valid, (D) uses the 2nd premise to create only a correlative relationship between the logically invalid inverse and the conclusion. Therefore (D) is correct

[ohthatpatrick]

Thanks for the question and response. I'll put up a complete explanation for posterity, but the quick punchline for the original poster is, "you're right. B is wrong because of ALWAYS."

(B) is identical to (D), except for "absence ALWAYS LEADS to failure" vs. "absence is ASSOCIATED WITH failure".

What are we looking back to in the argument to decide which is correct?

"Since then ... [failure] has always been during [absence]"

"Since then" does not allow us to say this has ALWAYS been the case. Just all cases since a certain time period. There's also a difference between saying X led to Y and saying Y happened during a period when X was true.

Example:
Since October 1st, I have only sneezed on Tuesdays.

Does this mean that Tuesdays always lead me to sneeze
or
that sneezing is associated with Tuesdays?

=== complete explanation ===

Question Type: Flaw

ARGUMENT CORE

conclusion:
Successful governance of Acredia REQUIRES concern for well being of people

(why?)

evidence:
Since the time of Duke of Acredia,
FAILED governance has always come during the rule of a government that did NOT have concern for the well being of people

ANALYSIS
Conclusion is really harsh / extreme / conditional. Are we really convinced that "lack of concern for people" GUARANTEES "a failed governance"?

Not quite. Over a certain period of time, the two have always gone hand in hand, but that doesn't mean they always WILL go hand in hand. It also doesn't mean that even in the instances so far that the "lack of concern" CAUSED the "failed governance". It may have just been a coincidental occurrence.

Perhaps every revolution in Acredia's history has occurred during Summer. Does that mean that Summer CAUSES every revolution?

ANSWER CHOICES

(A) "ignores poss" = DOES THIS WEAKEN?
The conclusion is about what's necessary to successfully govern, not about what's necessary for the well being of the people. So this is irrelevant.

(B) "infers ____ from _____" = DOES THIS MATCH CONC & PREM?
The author DOES infer the necessity of "caring for well being of people". Does the premise say that "lack of caring" has ALWAYS led to "failed governance"? Nope. It just says that every example of failed governance since the Duke of Acredia has been accompanied by "lack of caring".

(C) "appeals to untrustworthy sources" = FAMOUS FLAW (be dubious)
No shady source here. The evidence is merely the historical record of when governments have fallen.

(D) "infers ____ from _____" = DOES THIS MATCH CONC & PREM?
The author DOES infer the necessity of "caring for well being of people". Does the premise say that "lack of caring" is associated with "failed governance"? Yes. Every example of failed governance since the Duke of Acredia has been associated with "lack of caring".

(E) "presumes" = IS THIS A NECESSARY ASSUMPTION?
Assessing character of past rulers? Objective vs. subjective?
No match for the argument core.

This conclusion is about whether or not "lack of caring" is sufficient to cause a failed government. The evidence is about fallen governments and rulers who didn't care about people's well being.

[aharonw1]

Thanks for the question and response. I'll put up a complete explanation for posterity, but the quick punchline for the original poster is, "you're right. B is wrong because of ALWAYS."

(B) is identical to (D), except for "absence ALWAYS LEADS to failure" vs. "absence is ASSOCIATED WITH failure".

THANK YOU for the concise explanation. Really simple question, just the "Always" can trick people up.

I'm glad you started with the basic run down. No need to overthink this one.