Q13 - The use of ordinary dictionaries

[christine.defenbaugh]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Using plain ol' dictionaries to interpret law is justified.
Evidence: Chemists use the periodic table, which is agreed upon background info. Dictionaries can be useful just as the periodic table is useful.

Answer Anticipation:
The classic argument by analogy! The author drags the poor periodic table out and, pointing to its usefulness, argues that it's in a parallel position to a regular dictionary.
To weaken, then, we need some relevant difference between dictionaries and periodic tables. But it needs to be a meaningful difference - some difference that increases the possibility that ordinary dictionaries are NOT okay for legal interpretations. Superficial differences, like the color of the paper used for each, don't matter here.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
(A) A difference, but does it matter? One showed the relationships graphically, the other is alphabetical. That doesn't have any real impact on how useful they are, comparatively, for chemists and legal peeps.

(B) This would make a huge difference in the usefulness of the two items! If everyone agreed on the definitions in a dictionary, as they do for the periodic table, that would be one thing. But since different dictionaries have (sometimes wildly) different definitions, that seriously undermines their functionality in legal interpretations. Big win for weakening.

(C) The different histories is cute trivia, but doesn't change how they'd be used today.

(D) This would certainly mean that fewer people would just know the entire dictionary by memory, the way one might know a periodic table, but that doesn't make using a dictionary a bad idea. It's not like you need to have it all memorized to use it.

(E) This tells us that the current usage is different. But we don't really care about the current usage - the argument is about whether or not usage of the dictionaries is justified. Whether it happens now (or doesn't) has nothing to do with that.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Arguments by analogy are only as strong as the comparison in the analogy. The more relevant characteristics the two sides of the analogy have in common, the stronger the argument becomes. Arguments by analogy are fundamentally a type of comparison argument, and as in all comparison arguments relevant differences between the two sides will weaken, while relevant similarities will strengthen.

#officialexplanation

[SilviaL753]

Hi Christine - Thanks for the explanation.
I can feel the point you made in the Takeway/Pattern - Comparison and analogy are very alike (or, they are the same in nature). But could you clarify it further with an example? Thanks!

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Using plain ol' dictionaries to interpret law is justified.
Evidence: Chemists use the periodic table, which is agreed upon background info. Dictionaries can be useful just as the periodic table is useful.

Answer Anticipation:
The classic argument by analogy! The author drags the poor periodic table out and, pointing to its usefulness, argues that it's in a parallel position to a regular dictionary.
To weaken, then, we need some relevant difference between dictionaries and periodic tables. But it needs to be a meaningful difference - some difference that increases the possibility that ordinary dictionaries are NOT okay for legal interpretations. Superficial differences, like the color of the paper used for each, don't matter here.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
(A) A difference, but does it matter? One showed the relationships graphically, the other is alphabetical. That doesn't have any real impact on how useful they are, comparatively, for chemists and legal peeps.

(B) This would make a huge difference in the usefulness of the two items! If everyone agreed on the definitions in a dictionary, as they do for the periodic table, that would be one thing. But since different dictionaries have (sometimes wildly) different definitions, that seriously undermines their functionality in legal interpretations. Big win for weakening.

(C) The different histories is cute trivia, but doesn't change how they'd be used today.

(D) This would certainly mean that fewer people would just know the entire dictionary by memory, the way one might know a periodic table, but that doesn't make using a dictionary a bad idea. It's not like you need to have it all memorized to use it.

(E) This tells us that the current usage is different. But we don't really care about the current usage - the argument is about whether or not usage of the dictionaries is justified. Whether it happens now (or doesn't) has nothing to do with that.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Arguments by analogy are only as strong as the comparison in the analogy. The more relevant characteristics the two sides of the analogy have in common, the stronger the argument becomes. Arguments by analogy are fundamentally a type of comparison argument, and as in all comparison arguments relevant differences between the two sides will weaken, while relevant similarities will strengthen.

#officialexplanation