Q6 - Hana said she was not going

[mymansupa]

Can someone explain the wording of the answer for me please. I'm having difficulty understanding it. I know for Flaw in Reasoning questions you get better after seeing more answers, it's just this one has me scratching my head. Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

Try to take the abstract language from the choices and match them up with elements from the argument.

First, the argument:
Hana said she wouldn't invite her brothers.
She got a gift that her brothers had planned to give her.

Therefore, at least one of her brothers was at the party.

It's important to take a moment to acknowledge that the argument is a bad one. So take a second to see if you can identify any flaws or assumptions. Especially on the easier questions, this can help "prime" you for recognizing the answer when you see it.

Clearly, the fact that she received a gift that her brothers were planning to give her does NOT mean that her brothers were at the party. We need an answer choice that points this out. It will be hard to predict how the answer might be phrased.

(A) has nothing to do with the argument, which does not comment on whether or not it would be justified if Hana changed her mind.

(B) is not a good match. The argument does not present a "fact" of someone's presence -- the argument merely claims that the brothers were present. This is not a fact.

(C) is nonsense.

(D) hmm. what "something" might this be referring to? Well, what do know of "some people"? The brothers are the only group of people mentioned, and we know the brothers wanted to give Hana a recording -- that would be the "something" that is true of the brothers. Therefore, this answer choice essentially says "fails to establish that Hana's brothers are the only ones that wanted to give her that recording."

Is this true? Yes! The argument does do that!

(E) is not a good match. The argument doesn't say that Hana can only like one thing.

[song_lily]

Hi. That was a good breakdown of the stimulus and the answers. However, I am still confused why answer E cannot be a correct choice. I interpreted answer E as saying that the argument overlooks the possibility that a person's in interest in one kind of thing (Hana's brothers' plan/interest to give Hana a recording) is compatible with that person's interest in a different kind of thing (Hana's brothers' not wanting to give Hana that recording after all). So in the end, Hana's brother might not choose to give Hana the recording as a gift; therefore, the argument is flawed to base its conclusion that the brothers must have been present on the fact that the recording was present.

Can anyone tell me what am I missing here? Thank you.

[gs176]

I found that the best way to look at this problem and why the correct answer is D is that it points out in the argument that it fails to prove/establish that the recording could've only been given to Hana from her brothers and no one else. But what if someone else somehow knew Hana wanted to recording and got it for her as well? This needs to be answered and supported in the argument to allow the conclusion that at least some of Hana's brothers were at her birthday party is solid.

[WaltGrace1983]

Hi. That was a good breakdown of the stimulus and the answers. However, I am still confused why answer E cannot be a correct choice. I interpreted answer E as saying that the argument overlooks the possibility that a person's in interest in one kind of thing (Hana's brothers' plan/interest to give Hana a recording) is compatible with that person's interest in a different kind of thing (Hana's brothers' not wanting to give Hana that recording after all). So in the end, Hana's brother might not choose to give Hana the recording as a gift; therefore, the argument is flawed to base its conclusion that the brothers must have been present on the fact that the recording was present.

Can anyone tell me what am I missing here? Thank you.

I thought this was also a confusing answer choice. However, I think that there is really only one interest being discussed here (Hana's interest in having her brothers there). I just don't see anywhere else we can fit in alternative interests. What other interest would this be that her interest in having her brothers there is compatible? I would love some criticism on this answer choice too.

Either way, (A) does not deal with the core of the argument. We are concerned with the brothers wanting to give her the tape and being at the party

(B) is wrong because it is concluded that the brothers were at the party but we don't actually know if this is true.

(C) Can someone explain what the heck this means anyway?

(D) We know that the brothers wanted to give her that recording. This is true. We know that the "brothers" would be the only "some people" in this argument. That is true. However, couldn't it be true that other people gave Hana this recording? Thus, the answer choice fails to say why what is true for the brothers is ONLY true for the brothers. I crossed this out as an automatic elimination yet I didn't have anything good to work with with the other choices. I learned my lesson...vague language is not always bad language.

(E) As I said, I just don't see how this can be right but I would love some insight on this too!

[mjacob0511]

WaltGrace:

The argument is weak for numerous reasons. What (D) is saying, is that the argument is flawed because it doesn't establish that the only people who planned to give her this gift were here brothers. If she knew for a fact that only her brothers got this gift and she received it at her birthday party, it would make sense to conclude that either one of her brothers were there (or sent it to her). However, she does not establish that any of her other friends were not also planning on buying her this same gift. Well in that case what if five of her friends planned on buying her a present e.g. all the lsac books, and then she gets lsac books at her party, it could have been from any of them and there is no reason to conclude that her brothers were there.

[ohthatpatrick]

Choice (C), 'evaluative' vs. 'descriptive' is essentially the same thing as 'subjective' vs. 'objective'.

That sort of answer choice shows up a lot in the answer choices of older Flaw questions, but I can't remember a single example of it ever being a correct answer.

Here's a possible example of that flaw:
Any ad campaign that brings in more revenue than it costs is worthwhile. Paul thinks that renting a skywriter for an ad campaign would bring in more revenue than it costs. Thus, renting a skywriter is a worthwhile ad campaign.

Paul thinks that could be an example of a term that is intrinsically evaluative although it's being treated as though his belief is factually true (descriptive of reality).

In terms of (E), the explicit 'interest' identified in the argument is Hana's interest in a certain recording.

The wording of (E) would allow us to make this kind of objection:
"Just because Hana wanted that recording as a gift doesn't mean that she didn't also want OTHER stuff as gifts too".

Is this an objection to the argument?

No.

Had the argument said:
Hana told her brothers that she had an interest in recording X. Her brothers always give her gifts that she is interest in receiving. Since she did not receive recording X at her party, her brothers must not have been at the party or must not have given her a gift at the party.

This would be vulnerable to (E). If we wanted to counter-argue that the brothers WERE at the party and DID give her a gift, we would just say, "They gave Hana something ELSE she had an interest in receiving."

In the actual argument, Hana DID receive recording X, so the author concludes that the brothers WERE there.

To make the counterargument that the brothers were NOT there, we'd need to say, "someone ELSE gave her recording X."

That's what (D) allows us to do. Maybe other people also knew her interest in that recording.

[mygarza]

Could someone clarify answer choice D? It says "fails to establish THAT SOMETHING TRUE OF SOME PEOPLE IS TRUE OF ONLY THOSE PEOPLE" but isn't that exactly what the argument says?

Shouldn't the answer choice have said " establishes incorrectly THAT SOMETHING TRUE OF SOME PEOPLE IS TRUE OF ONLY THOSE PEOPLE?

I didn't pick this answer choice because while it was factually true, It seemed like "failing to establish" was the wrong wording that was used.

Can someone please try to clear this up?

[ohthatpatrick]

Can you explain where you think the argument ever said "something true of some people is only true of those people"?

Where do you see any wording in the stimulus that is as strong and restrictive as "only"?

1st sent - Hana wasn't gonna invite her brothers. (there might be other people she also wasn't gonna invite)

2nd sent - Hana had an interest in a recording (other people might have also been interested in that recording)

3rd sent - Her brother planned to give her that recording (other people might have also planned to give her that recording)

=====

Remember your job is to be able to accept the PREM while arguing against the conclusion.

The conclusion was "at least some of H's bros were at the party"

Our goal here is to argue that
"NONE of Hana's brothers were at the party"

The author will say, "Nuh uh! Her brothers planned to give her recording X. Hana GOT recording X as a gift at the party."

How could YOU explain that, if you want to argue that none of Hana's brothers were at the party?

You could say ...
- Maybe her brothers sent their gift to the party by mail, or with someone else. That's a way that Hana could receive the gift, even though the brothers were not at the party.

- Maybe one of Hana's friends got her recording X. That's a way that Hana could have received the gift, even though her brothers were not at the party.

(D) is using that second line of objection.

Hana's brothers planned to give her that recording.

But maybe Hana's best friend also planned to give her that recording.

In order for me to feel like the recording X gift MUST have come from the brothers, I need the author to establish that ONLY Hana's brothers planned to give her that recording.

Does that make sense?

[jiangziou]

Could someone please explain A: Disregard the possibility that a change of mind might be justified by a change in circumstances?

I interpret it as: Hana's brother change their mind and decide not to give her the recording gift because they are not invited to the party.

[NilaF179]

Can someone tell me what does "expressing an interest" refer to in the following premise: "Hana received a recording in which she had expresses an interest"?

Does it mean that among gifts, there was a recording of Hana's voice where she had expressed an interest in inviting her brothers?
or does it mean that Hana expressed an interest in the gift she received?

This part of the premise confuses me!

Thank you!