Q19 - No one in the French

[missbernadette]

Should I diagram this question..Its quite confusing. What I understand from the passage is that no one in the French department can teach more than one intro class and only advanced classes are being taught for the next term. So, its false that the Professor is teaching 2 intro classes for the next term. I'm guessing that the conclusion has been found because since neither premises allow for intro classes for be taught.
(E) looks like it follows this reasoning as well because the building won't be taxed because it has a public space and because it is new (recently completed). Am I hitting in the ballpark?
Is the reason why (B) is wrong is because the information leades to the action happening instead of it not happening?

[noah]

[said in deep Morgan Freeman voice:] Only you can answer whether to diagram a logical reasoning question.

If it's helpful, go for it. But if you "get" the structure of an argument, it usually isn't necessary to diagram. For this one, it seems like you got it.

The conclusion is that the Professor isn't teaching 2 French intro classes. Why? 1. Because nobody can teach more than one intro class. 2. There aren't any intro classes being taught!

We're looking for a match - an argument with a conclusion (and preferably one about something not being true) that is independently proven by two premises. And that's (D)!

The conclusion: The new building will not be taxed next year. Why? 1. Because it has a large public space, and new buildings with large public space are exempt from taxes for two years. 2. All new buildings will not be taxed for five years.

(A) is a total mis-match. The structure of (A) is a single chain (there's only one supporting premise). Occupied by May --> Taxed by new rate, Morrison bldg occupied by May --> Morrison bldg. Taxed by new rate.

(B) is very tempting! The conclusion - that the code does not apply - is valid since the building was built in 1873, and thus before 1900 (triggering the first premise). However, the other premise does not independently prove the conclusion. It only allows us to infer that the the first part of the code will not apply. Perhaps the rest of it does.

(C) is similar to (A). The argument is a single chain.

(E) is also a single chain: hospital --> exempt from property taxes --> charged at special rate. Where's the second line of reasoning that supports the conclusion?

Does that clear it up?

[aznriceboi17]

Was anyone else thrown off by what appeared to me a detail creep: classes in the French department vs 'language classes'? French departments will usually have French language classes as well as classes for the study of some aspect of French history/culture (so not specifically language).

[christine.defenbaugh]

Was anyone else thrown off by what appeared to me a detail creep: classes in the French department vs 'language classes'? French departments will usually have French language classes as well as classes for the study of some aspect of French history/culture (so not specifically language).

Interesting question aznriceboi17!

Great eye for detail and language specificity here! However, I wouldn't actually call this a detail creep. While they do talk about both the French department and French language classes, they don't use them interchangeably, and no assumption is made in the argument that all the classes in the French department are language classes. In other words, there might be a whole host of French history classes in the French department and it wouldn't change the validity or essential structure of the argument at all!

The structure here is that a conclusion is independently supported (completely) by two different premises. Let's take a look at the one that refers to the French department.

PREMISE: Alban is in the French dept. No one in the French dept is allowed to teach more than one intro class in a term.
CONCLUSION: The two French language classes Alban teaches can't both be intro.

If the French department had French history classes as well as language classes, then the 'only one intro class' rule would apply to those classes as well. But so what? Either way, Alban can't teach two intro classes, regardless of whether they are language or history or anything else.

The fact that it's the French department is not really that important. What is important is that there is a rule that applies to Alban that says that he cannot teach more than one intro class per term.

Does that help clear things up a bit?

[aznriceboi17]

Thank you for the response! I think what threw me off was that I thought that when the author said 'both of the French classes' he meant 'both of the French department classes'.

Because of that, it seemed to me that the second premise (about there not being any intro language classes) wouldn't be enough to guarantee the conclusion and why I was tempted by (B), which gives two premises, one of them sufficient to guarantee the conclusion, the other not.

[thompson.simonm]

Question on this one: can we safely assume that "recently completed" is functionally equivalent to "new"? I initially passed on choice D (mistakenly choosing choice B, which I now understand to be incorrect) because I felt "recently completed" could mean the building was completed any time during the last 5 years or so, and thus might not be bound by those premises.

[tommywallach]

I think we can, yes.

-t

[go_nuts]

For B, is this the correct diagramming?

Premise 1: Buildings built before 1900 --> revised tax code does not apply
Premise 2: buildings built between 1900-1920 --> only the first section of code applies
Conclusion: building built in 1873 --> revised tax code does not apply.

On this basis, P1 proves the conclusion, while P2 doesn't trigger anything.

At first, I thought P2 would at least prove that first section of the code will not apply for the building built in 1873... but after diagramming as above, I realized it actually doesn't do anything...?!

Is my analysis correct??

Thank you