Q27

[youmin.moon]

I understand why the answer is (E), but I want to make sure if I understand (D) right. Is (D) wrong because 'owning few shares in those industries' is not really related to the wealth? I also think 'families of many members' are not really related to those elites. Am I standing on the right point? Thanks in advance.

[daniel]

I understand why the answer is (E), but I want to make sure if I understand (D) right. Is (D) wrong because 'owning few shares in those industries' is not really related to the wealth? I also think 'families of many members' are not really related to those elites. Am I standing on the right point? Thanks in advance.

I was reviewing this passage today, so I thought I'd post my thoughts here. Would love to get some feedback on the thought process.

The question asks us to weaken Rubinstein's argument about wealth and the official governing elite. So, we should first make sure that we understand what that argument is. I believe this question is referring to the argument in the third paragraph of the passage:

Premise: There were many millionaires who are totally unknown to historians.
Premise: University attendance and a father with a middle class income were the only requirements.
Conclusion: Therefore, great wealth did not have anything to do with entry into the governing elite, as represented by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of manufacturing companies.

The conclusion seems unnecessarily strong given the evidence that is presented. Is there really enough evidence to say that it played no role whatsoever? Were bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of companies the only groups in the governing elite?

(A) Out of scope. University attendance and religious background are irrelevant to the claim that wealth had nothing to do with entry into the governing elite.

(B) Comparison trap. Both of the factors listed in this answer choice are mentioned as requirements in R's premise. So, this doesn't weaken the argument. The comparison here is irrelevant to the argument, since R acknowledges both were factors.

(C) Comparison trap. The relative wealth of bishops to higher civil servants or chairmen of manufacturing companies is irrelevant. These are the groups that Rubinstein includes in his conclusion.

(D) Out of scope, possibly strengthens. How many shares that family members owned in the textile and iron industries is irrelevant. Even if these families owned more than a few shares, does that really equate to "great wealth"? That being said, "few, if any, shares" is probably much less than "great wealth," so if anything, this answer choice would strengthen Rubinstein's argument.

(E) The correct answer. This pokes a hole in R's argument. First, it suggests that his argument is based on sample selection bias (R included Bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of manufacturing, but excluded vice-chancellors), and it also suggests that there were some members of the governing elite who were members because of their wealth.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Excellent explanation daniel! You are really flexing your analytical muscles!

So much of your analysis is spot on! I have just a few minor tweaks though, to help you (and other readers) perfect your analysis.

I find the argument core in lines 49-55 to be worded in a slightly confusing way. What role does the phrase "as represented by ..." play? This is the defined group with the minimum requirements described! So I can lay out the core this way:

Premise: Only requirements to be [bishop, higher civil servant, chairman of manufacturing co] were 1) university and 2) middle-class $$ dad.
Conclusion: Great wealth had nothing to do with entry to governing elite.

Laid out this way, I find it easier to see both disconnects that daniel so correctly pointed out: just because great wealth was not strictly required for those three groups, does that mean it played no role at all? Are those three categories representative of the entire governing elite?

(E) gets right to the heart of the second gap. If there is another category of the governing elite (vice-chancellors), for whom wealth determined their entry into that elite, then we can't say great wealth had nothing to do with entry!



WRONG ANSWER ANALYSIS

(A) Out of scope. University attendance and religious background are irrelevant to the claim that wealth had nothing to do with entry into the governing elite.

This is also a comparison trap! But you're completely correct that none of this makes it more likely that great wealth mattered.

(B) Comparison trap. Both of the factors listed in this answer choice are mentioned as requirements in R's premise. So, this doesn't weaken the argument. The comparison here is irrelevant to the argument, since R acknowledges both were factors.

Watch the detail creep from 'university attendance' to 'prestigious university'! Also, it's not so much that Rubinstein acknowledges these that throws this answer out, but rather that this comparison (either way) doesn't support or undermine the relevance of great wealth.

(C) Comparison trap. The relative wealth of bishops to higher civil servants or chairmen of manufacturing companies is irrelevant. These are the groups that Rubinstein includes in his conclusion.

I disagree that these groups are included in Rubinstein's conclusion. His conclusion is about the entirety of the governing elite.

If this answer choice had indicated that bishops did in fact tend to come from extreme wealth, then despite the fact that great wealth was not strictly required it would certainly start to look like great wealth mattered! So we can't toss this answer on the trash heap just for discussing a category Rubinstein acknowledges.

Rather, the problem is that even if bishops were "somewhat wealthier" than their counterparts, that doesn't tell us anything remotely concrete about whether they had 'great wealth' or not. We know they are above that minimum requirement of wealth, but we can't leap from a comparison [wealthier] to any likelihood of an absolute characteristic [great wealth].

(D) Out of scope, possibly strengthens. How many shares that family members owned in the textile and iron industries is irrelevant. Even if these families owned more than a few shares, does that really equate to "great wealth"? That being said, "few, if any, shares" is probably much less than "great wealth," so if anything, this answer choice would strengthen Rubinstein's argument.

Some really great thoughts here. My only real tweak is that this doesn't strengthen either. Even if "few, if any, shares" is arguably less than "great wealth", those families could have had great wealth in some other way. In fact, Rubinstein's argument about the location of wealth would suggest that quite a few truly wealthy people had nothing to do with the textile and iron industries. The information that they didn't have these shares doesn't make it more or less likely that they had great wealth.

All in all, a really excellent explanation!

Please let me know if you have anything more to add!

[WaltGrace1983]

I just wanted to add my own way of getting to (E). I didn't lay it out in my head as an LR-like argument (I probably should have). I thought about the argument much more globally: "Rubinstein doesn't believe great wealth has much to do with entry into governing elite."

(A) irrelevant comparison, move on.
(B) irrelevant comparison, move on.
(C) "somewhat wealthier?" Keep but move on.
(D) Out of scope - this doesn't have much to do with concrete assessments of wealth and government entry.
(E) "Many of whom held office because of their wealth." The "because of" really is the money shot right here. It doesn't get much clearer than saying that "Wealth → Entry" and thus wealth and entry definitely have something to do with each other!