Celeste757
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 18
Joined: January 22nd, 2011
 
 
 

Q24 - Advertisement: Our oat bran cereal

by Celeste757 Sat May 14, 2011 11:42 am

hello!
I was COMPLETELY confused by this one. Did not know how to approach it at all (conditional diagram? conceptually?) I picked B, which is correct, but I just did it on a gut feeling that B's answer choice was a completely ridiculous argument, as I felt the stimulus was. But do not think that is actually a good strategy, haha.
thanks!!
 
theaether
Thanks Received: 23
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 44
Joined: January 04th, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q24 - Advertisement: Our oat bran cereal

by theaether Sat May 14, 2011 12:58 pm

This was one of the rarer flaws they use known as "circular reasoning." And you are right, in that the argument is inherently ridiculous. The stimulus is saying that their cereal's claims are true because health-conscious customers (HCC) buy them which proves it's true because HCC would not buy any other cereals.

They're using the premise to prove the premise. There is no significant evidence actually offered. (B) as you saw, was the same circular reasoning. It's basically like saying, "I am right because as you can see from my previous history, I am never wrong." However you wrap up the language to make it fancier and hide it, you're still using the premise of "I am never wrong" to prove that you are "right" which is the same thing as "never wrong."
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 3 times.
 
 

Re: Q24 - oat bran cereal

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Mon May 16, 2011 4:14 pm

I think I see this differently...

I don't see circular reasoning, although I see why you suspected that it was. There are two arguments in the stimulus, one valid and the other invalid.

The first uses positive argument structure similar to the following: All boys play sports. Since Andy is a boy, he must also play sports. It sounds circular, but it's not. In notation it looks like

B --> PS
B
--------
PS

(Notation Key: B = boy, PS = play sports)

Circular reasoning would look like

B --> PS
---------
B --> PS

There's a slight difference that changes the argument from valid to invalid. The conclusion in the first example is not just assumed to be true, it's proven. Whereas in the second argument, the conclusion merely restates a premise.

So the first argument in the stimulus is valid. It says that

B --> A
B
--------
A

(Notation Key: B = bought the cereal, A = information is accurate)

But the second argument in the stimulus is invalid. it says that

HC + B --> A
A + B
----------------
HC

(Notation Key: HC = health conscious, B = bought a food, A = accurate)

Clearly, this is reversed logic - and that's the flaw. We also see reversed logic in answer choice (B).

In the second argument of answer choice (B) the following assertion is made

IN ---> IC
IC
-----------
IN

(Notation Key: IN = intelligent people, IC = play an intellectually challenging game)

This too is clearly a reversal and so best matches the flaw committed in the stimulus.

Let's take a look though at the incorrect answers.

(A) is circular reasoning. The argument concludes that these people are polite on the grounds that they are polite - not the same flaw.
(C) relates two separate issues. It compares a highly developed taste with choosing a brand of coffee and with distinguishing 8 brands of coffe from each other.
(D) concludes that someone is small because they saw them and confirmed it themselves. We might not want to take this person's word for it that the individual is short, but that's still a different flaw.
(E) has totally irrelevant evidence. Mistaking the flowers for a peacock cannot be related to the conditional relationship and so does not involve a reversal.

Hope that helps!
 
zainrizvi
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 171
Joined: July 19th, 2011
 
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q24 - oat bran cereal

by zainrizvi Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:11 am

Hmm...

Really interesting how (A) is circular reasoning. I thought it wasn't because it had the modification "consistently polite in their daily lives".. but I guess those words are basically meaningless

The latter half of the argument says the proof that they are polite is because they are polite.. :lol:

Oddly enough, I think the FIRST part of (A) is actually reverse logic.

People considered polite ---> greet coworkers
-------
Greeting coworkers ---> polite thing to do


Is that correct? It seems a bit off to me because the first premise is about "people being polite" and the second premise is about "the polite thing to do"
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q24 - oat bran cereal

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:16 pm

zainrizvi Wrote:Is that correct? It seems a bit off to me because the first premise is about "people being polite" and the second premise is about "the polite thing to do"

Nice catch! That's exactly right. Now sometimes when we have no other answer choices available, we might want to grant them flexibility with their language, but in this case, it's just too far. There is a significant difference between "people who are considered polite" and something being "the polite thing to do."

So it's close, but not quite. Nice work zainrizvi!
User avatar
 
daniel
Thanks Received: 0
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 62
Joined: July 31st, 2012
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Advertisement: Our oat bran cereal

by daniel Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:34 pm

I'm still having a bit of trouble understanding how the arguments presented in the stimulus and choice (B) are NOT circular reasoning, but I'm also struggling with how to symbolize the argument. I spent quite a bit of time trying to work through this, and I would appreciate it if someone could comment on my work to clear up my thought processes.

1) if some health-conscious consumers bought the cereal, the health claims printed on the box must be true. Some health-conscious consumers bought the cereal, so the claims are true.

(B[c] some HC) -> A
(B[c] some HC)
=========
A

B[c] = bought "our" cereal; HC = health-conscious consumers; A = accurate health claims on the package

2) No health conscious consumer would buy a food if the package contained health claims that were not true. But, some health conscious consumers did buy "our" cereal. So, some people who bought the cereal were really health conscious consumers.

~A -> (B[f] -> ~HC)
(HC some B[c])
=========
(B[c] some HC)

B[f] = bought food (in general); HC = health-conscious consumers; B[c] = bought "our" cereal; A = accurate health claims on the package

The circular reasoning enters into the argument when the author attempts to show that some of the people who bought the cereal are really health-conscious consumers by virtue of the fact that they bought the cereal in Argument #2, which is also the same premise that is used to show that the health claims were accurate in Argument #1.

Note that while I agree that there are two arguments here, I think that one depends on the other, with Argument #2 providing a sub-conclusion which is used to prove the claims are accurate in Argument #1.

mattsherman Wrote:So the first argument in the stimulus is valid. It says that

B --> A
B
--------
A

(Notation Key: B = bought the cereal, A = information is accurate)


I agree with the structure of the argument that you have presented here, but I think the notation leaves out a key piece of information that is used to connect the two arguments together: health-conscious consumers.


mattsherman Wrote:But the second argument in the stimulus is invalid. it says that

HC + B --> A
A + B
----------------
HC

(Notation Key: HC = health conscious, B = bought a food, A = accurate)

Clearly, this is reversed logic - and that's the flaw. We also see reversed logic in answer choice (B).


I agree that as you've notated it here, it appears to be reversed logic, but my interpretation led me to notate this part of the stimulus a little differently than what you have done.

For the answer choices, here's what I have:

(A) The second sentence appears to represent circular reasoning; however, it doesn't connect to the first sentence in the same manner that the argument in the stimulus does. This would be more correct if the second sentence were to say, "We know these people really are polite because they never fail to greet their coworkers." That said, it also does not contain the term shift that I noted in my diagram (specific case/product versus general case/product).

(B) correct answer choice. Notice the shift between "this card game" and "intellectually challenging card games" (in general). This is a direct match to the flawed logic in the stimulus, and a term shift that does not appear in (A).

(C) Not circular. The taste test represents a reasonable justification for assuming that the people really do have "highly developed taste."

(D) Not circular. Since we saw the people before they tried on the coat, we're not basing the conclusion on the fact that they were able to fit into the coat.

(E) Not circular. The second sentence provides some information that supports that the people who mistook the fake painting as the original painting actually had very poor eyesight.

Again, I would appreciate any comments; this was a very difficult question for me.
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q24 - Advertisement: Our oat bran cereal

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:32 pm

daniel Wrote:~A -> (B[f] -> ~HC)
(HC some B[c])
=========
(B[c] some HC)

Here's the issue! I think we have the conclusion wrong. It's not that some health conscious people bought the cereal, but rather that these people are indeed health conscious.

We actually agree on the first premise, just organized in a slightly different way:

If they're health conscious and they bought the food, what do we know? The information must be accurate. Your first premise can translate to the same as I wrote it.

~A --> (B --> ~HC)

can be rewritten:

HC + B --> A

Now what about the second premise you have? They bought it. So now we have:

HC + B --> A
B

But we can also add the fact that the information is accurate, they proved that in the first argument. So now we have:

HC + B --> A
A + B

But does that prove that these people are health conscious? No way! It's reversed logic.

Does that help clear this one up?
User avatar
 
daniel
Thanks Received: 0
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 62
Joined: July 31st, 2012
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
 
 

Re: Q24 - Advertisement: Our oat bran cereal

by daniel Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:32 pm

mattsherman Wrote:
daniel Wrote:~A -> (B[f] -> ~HC)
(HC some B[c])
=========
(B[c] some HC)

Here's the issue! I think we have the conclusion wrong. It's not that some health conscious people bought the cereal, but rather that these people are indeed health conscious.

...

Does that help clear this one up?


Thanks, Matt. This definitely helped, and it's very clear now.