Q9 - The reasoning that Oscar uses

[b91302310]

Could anyone explain why (D) is wrong?

Thanks.

[dtangie23]

I originally put (D) also. Here's how I made the problem make sense to me...

The question is asking you to assess the flaw in Oscar's reasoning.

Oscar tells us that speed of information processing will be the SINGLE most important factor in determining wealth.

In the past, geographic location determined wealth. The north was rich and the south was poor. But in the future, since the speed of information processing will determine wealth, these boundaries mean nothing. We just need to look at how well these countries implement the new technology which will allow for speed of information processing.

But, wait. Oscar said that the speed of information processing/incorporation of this technology was the SINGLE most important factor. So what if a bunch of tiny other factors team up to overcome this SINGLE most important factor? If they can do this, then they collectively determine the wealth of a nation. This clearly defies the conclusion, which states that economic success is just how well the technology is incorporated. It may not be about just the technology. Economic success can be determined by a host of other factors that act together.

Answer choice (D) is saying that he doesn't convince us that faster information processing will only have beneficial effects. But does this matter?

Oscar is simply arguing that the speed is important. He never specifies whether fast is beneficial or not beneficial. And he doesn't have to make that distinction for us to see the flaw in his argument discussed above.

If fast is beneficial, the problem addressed by answer choice (C) still remains-- the speed factor can be bullied by a bunch of other collective factors.

If fast is not beneficial, the same problem exists. The other factors can, together, supersede the significance of the speed.

In the end, the actual speed does not matter. It's the IMPACT that speed, in general, has on the economy that we are evaluating.

Sorry for the longwinded response and any errors present in it.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great explanation dtangie23!

I might just add another small point about answer choice (D). I think I saw answer choice (D) slightly different, but it could just be that we're thinking the same thing but saying it in a different way.

Oscar never claims that faster information processing will have ONLY beneficial effects. According to Oscar it will have some beneficial effects since it is the most important factor in creating wealth. But there are many things out there that have some good effects and some bad effects - like medication for example. One of the most important ways we have of treating headaches is taking aspirin. And although one of aspirin's most important effects is to make headaches go away, there are other effects sometimes.

The argument simply doesn't claim that faster information technology has only beneficial effects, nor does it require that assumption either.

Hope that helps, although the previous analysis of the argument was spot on.

[alexg89]

I got this question right on my latest preptest, though it was a tough one.

My analysis for the answer choices:

A - If anything he is implying that current economic status will not be the major factor that determines who develops into a "fast" or "slow" economy, just whoever can successfully implement the technology. Therefore he is not overlooking it.

B - Misses what the argument is about, it is not about what is the single most important problem.

C - Correctly nails the flaw -although it can be challenging to see it from the convoluted language. Namely, it address the fact that certain present factors related to geography like wealth could make those countries more likely to successfully implement the technology and therefore the division could still be driven primarily by geography.

D- As mentioned by the other posters this falls outside the relevance of the argument.

E - Also falls outside the relevance of the argument.

[griffin.811]

I think the above poster missed the idea a bit.

To me it seems the issue is that Oscar is claiming "X will be the single most important factor in determining wealth in the future, so division of the new world will be only/just be dependent on the ability of countries to implement X"

Well yes X is the most important factor if you separate the factors out individually, but what if factors Y and Z (say intellectual capital, and infrastructure), when combined, are more important than X by itself? then we cant say that wealth will be determined soley by a countries ability to implement X. What about Y and Z?

Analogy: Oscar could be saying Tom Brady is the best QB in the NFL, therefore his team will win the superbowl.

What does he fail to consider? While the QB is the most important player on the team, the team with the best QB doesn't always win the superbowl. Why? because a combination of other factors are more important than just having the best QB (can the O-line block for the QB, can the defense stob other teams from scoring, etc...)

[jewels0602]

I had a difficult time setting up the core and I think I had a tough time because of it. If someone could review my set-up, I would really appreciate it.

Premise 1: Emerging info technologies will soon make speed of info processing the single most important factor in creation of wealth

Premise 2: Country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success incorporating those new technologies

Conclusion: The division of world into north (rich) and south (poor) will soon be obsolete.




Thanks!

[WaltGrace1983]

I had a difficult time setting up the core and I think I had a tough time because of it. If someone could review my set-up, I would really appreciate it.

Premise 1: Emerging info technologies will soon make speed of info processing the single most important factor in creation of wealth

Premise 2: Country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success incorporating those new technologies

Conclusion: The division of world into north (rich) and south (poor) will soon be obsolete.

Thanks!

I'm not a geek but I saw this a bit differently then you did. Here is how I saw this problem:

Emerging IT will make speed of IP the single most important factor in the creation of wealth
→
The division of the world into "Northern" and "Southern" countries will be obsolete: there will just be "fast" countries and "slow" countries
→
Country's economic well-being will not just be about geographical positioning but a matter of relative success in incorporating new technology

I arrived at this by understanding the logical cues. After "creation of individual, corporate, and national wealth," we get the word "consequently." This word signifies the beginning of the necessary condition, because all of the stuff after "consequently" shows that it is merely a CONSEQUENCE (a result, an effect) of what came before it. In other words, it had a CAUSAL effect.

Also, we get the word "thus" before "a country's economic well-being will not..."

(A) This one was VERY tricky for me because this seems like a better counter to Sylvia than to Oscar. Oscar not only considers this possibility but bases his whole argument on it. Eliminate (A).

(B) Single most important problem? We don't need to establish this. Eliminate.

(D) Don't need to show that it will have ONLY beneficial effects. Eliminate.

(E) We don't need this distinction.

(C) is the answer because we cannot merely go from talking about the "single most important factor" to concluding that it will be THE ONLY factor (thus a country's economic well-being will be...just a matter of its relative success in incorporating those new technologies]

[touch_horizon]

you don`t need to bother (D), for it is questioning the facticity of the premise. Just focus on the reasonging.