Q25 - Dean: The mathematics department

[ohthatpatrick]

Let’s put a complete explanation up here.

Question type: Flaw

Argument core:

Conc -
the request by the math dept. to be given sole responsibility for teaching Stats for Social Sciences is unjustified.

(why?)

Prem -
the course has about as much math in it as high school algebra
+
just b/c a course has math in it doesn’t mean it needs to be taught by a math professor


Okay, so we should analyze this logic for
- missing logical links
- potential objections
- alternative explanations (if applicable)

I’ll be honest: reading this argument several times does not actually give me any sense of where a flaw is or what the correct answer will deal with.

It’s definitely not an airtight argument.

For that, we would need some logical link such as, "if a class has much math in it as high school algebra, then the math dept. is not justified in claiming sole responsibility for teaching it."

But even though that looseness exists, it would be incredibly surprising if the correct answer wanted us to spell that out.

To try to think of Potential Objections, always play devil’s advocate to the argument. In this case, how would we stick up for the math dept? What might they say in response, still seeking to claim this class for their department?

Maybe they’d say, "the Social Science dept. already has more courses per teacher than the math dept., so this course should go to the math dept. to help balance things out."

Maybe they’d say, "this course makes use of special A/V equipment that is already kept in the math dept.’s building".

You can imagine how we might come up with tons of possible retorts.

What this really points to is the fact that we have no idea why the math dept. wanted to claim this course in the first place. We haven’t been given any of their rationale.

The author is ASSUMING that the math dept. thinks it should get sole responsibility for this course BECAUSE the course has math in it.

If the Math Dept. had said, "this class has math in it, therefore it should be ours", then this author’s argument is a pretty good refutation of that. But maybe the Math Dept. has a different reason for claiming this course that our author hasn’t addressed/considered.

As we go to the answer choices (without a very sharp sense of what we want), we can still get to the correct answer by analyzing each answer choice by asking:
1. Is this true?
2. Does this matter? (is this a reasoning flaw)

(A) Is it true that the author assumed that expertise in a subject doesn’t enable one to teach that subject well?
No. Nothing in the argument dealt with the quality of teaching. The author could accept that expertise DOES imply good teaching, and that still wouldn’t affect the argument. The author would just say that teachers from other departments can also achieve expertise in this subject matter and thus teach the course well. Eliminate.

(B) Is it true that the author thought he had refuted a view? Yes, his conclusion is "such demands are therefore unjustified." Is it true that he showed that one possible reason was insufficient? Yes, he said "the fact that a course has math in it" [one possible reason] "does not mean it needs to be taught by math people" [insufficient].
Is this a reasoning flaw? Yes. Just because you reject one reason as insufficient doesn’t mean the overall question has been answered.

Let’s say I plan to vote for Candidate X in the upcoming election.

Someone else says, "Candidate X has more experience in politics than her opponents. But the fact that a candidate has more experience than her opponents doesn’t mean that you need to vote for her. Thus your decision to vote for Candidate X is unjustified."

First of all, who said I was voting for her based on her experience?
Secondly, who said that was the ONLY thing I was considering. Maybe her experience alone isn’t sufficient, but when I consider her environmental views, her integrity, her style of positive campaigning, etc., I ultimately reach a point of justifying my decision to vote for her?

Keep this answer choice.

(C) Is it true that the author assumed that MOST students know as much about math as history? Not even close. Eliminate.

(D) Is it true that the author fails to establish that math teachers are incapable of teaching this class effectively? Sure. Is this a reasoning problem? i.e., did the author NEED to establish this in order to make his argument? No, because the author wasn’t making his point based on the idea that math teachers are Incapable of teaching this class. He was making his point based on the idea that non-math teachers are ALSO capable of teaching this class.

(E) Is it true that the author assumed that ANYthing that applies to history courses MUST also apply to math courses? No. This idea is super extreme. The author didn’t commit himself to such a sweeping claim.

So (A), (C), and (E) are just dirty, dirty lies. The author didn’t do what those answer choices accuse him of doing. Hence, they must be eliminated. (remember that "presumes" and "takes for granted" is the same thing as "Necessary Assumption" ... so you should bring the same suspicion of extreme language you have in Necessary Assumption to bear on these types of Flaw answer choices).

(B) and (D) both say something true, but we have to ask ourselves which one addresses a problem in moving FROM the premise TO the conclusion.

The author never needed to establish that math professors were incapable of teaching the class, because he’s not arguing that they SHOULDN’T teach the class. He’s only arguing that their claim to have sole responsibility is unjustified (i.e. he’s arguing that others SHOULD be allowed to teach the class).

Hope this helps.


#officialexplanation

[jennifer]

WHY IS THE CORRECT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION B? AND NOT D...THANK YOU

[cyruswhittaker]

Choice B is correct because it accurately expresses the flaw in argumentation used by the Dean.

The Dean's conclusion is that such demands by the mathematics dept. to be given sole responsibility for teaching the Social Sciences' Statistics course is unjustified.

Notice that in supporting this conclusion, the Dean only presents a single reason that the math dept might use to justify the view: the course has mathematics in it.

From showing that this single possible reason would be insufficient to justify the math dept's view, the Dean jumps to a much broader conclusion that the view as a whole is unjustified.

But refuting just one reason is not enough to show that a view is unjustified, especially if there might be other supporting reasons.

Maybe there was another, more critical, reason that the math dept. has for justifying their view. Surely, this would need to be addressed as well.

This flaw is accurately expressed in choice B.

D, on the other hand, would not be a flaw in this argument. Indeed, it seems implicit in the argument that the Dean believes the math professors are cabable of teaching Statistics. In other words, the math professors' teaching capability is not in question: what is being argued here is whether they should be given the sole responsibility of teaching the course. An argument cannot be criticized for failing to mention something that is not relevant to the argument.

[wguwguwgu]

I picked B and see that B is by far the strongest answer.

However, isn't E also " a little bit" correct? Isn't bad analogy also one of the frequent flaws? --- If B were not there, would this one be valid answer or what am I missing here?

many thanks in advance!

[timmydoeslsat]

Yeah always be on the lookout for improper analogies.

This one is ok. The dean is making a point that a course with a historical perspective does not require a history professor to support the idea of a mathematical perspective does not require a math professor.

Answer choice E is not occurring in this argument. Does the dean really presume any policy in regards to history. No.

Furthermore, the mentioning of history is the idea that a professor teaching a subject simply because it has a minor tangential tie to the subject is not justified. The dean is not claiming anything about what is justified.

[genieb]

why is the answer not A? I thought of it as an alternative reason to justify this "demand" that the Dean overlooked.

[csunnerberg13]

why is the answer not A? I thought of it as an alternative reason to justify this "demand" that the Dean overlooked.

(A) is wrong because this isn't something that the dean assumed in making his argument - his argument does not need to hold that expertise in a certain subject area does not enable a person to teach well. The dean doesn't mention anything about whether the math teachers are qualified to teach the subject well. All he's saying is that the particular reason they've given is not sufficient to justify the argument that they should teach the classes.

Put another way - he's not saying that the math teachers have expertise in this subject and so they're not enabled to teach it well. He's not concerned with the quality of the teaching. He's concerned with the one reason presented to him and refuting it.

Hope that helps

[T.J.]

Ok, so the analogy used in this argument turns out to well support the conclusion that the mathematical content in a course does not warrant the teaching of a math professor. However, the flaw is that the view is being rejected only due to one reason while there might be other good reasons for the involvement of a math professor in a statistics course.

I actually glimpsed over (B) as I think that one flaw can rule out a scientific theory. So one reason might also be sufficient to refute a view. My mistake is equivocating theory and view.

I was wondering about (A) too, as it does bring up another issue.
If it is phrased as FAIL TO CONSIDER "that expertise in a subject does not enable one to teach that subject well", would it be a keeper? I think yes, because the Dean overlooks the fact that a math teacher is more likely to teach the course well. In other words, a reason is provided in favor of the view that the course should be taught by a math guy.

I would appreciate your feedback!

[Mab6q]

Can we please get some more discussion on this question from the experts. I got this question wrong twice, and it seems like an odd one to me. I thought the use of the analogy was wrong, but it seems like people are saying there was no problem there. What was the flaw, the fact that the conclusion was broader than the evidence provided. That just sounds so generic to me which is why it was so hard to select B. E, does go a bit too far, but I found it to be a tempting answer choice. Can anyone else provide some feedback.

[tjccm]

Does the dean really "refute" the view? He just says " the demand is unjustified". which seems to be "unsupported".
Thank you!

[maria487]

If (E) was amended to say "presumes, without providing justification, that one policy that applies to history courses must be justified with respect to math courses," would that be correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

Almost.

Is there any 'policy' happening in this argument? The 2nd to last sentence is just presented as the author's opinion. Who knows if it's a policy?

If we just mean "the author's policy", i.e. the author's belief, then we could say the author "presumes that at least one policy (belief) that applies to history courses also applies to mathematics courses".