PT 57, June 09 Section 2 Question 12 Forum

[Marinekingprime]

Can someone please show me the form they would use to diagram this supporter assumption question (using A,B,C,D)

Criminologist: The main purpose of most criminal organizations is to generate profits. The ongoing revolution in biotechnology and information technology promise to generate enormous profits. Therefore, criminal organizations will undoubtedly try to become involved in these areas.

The conclusion of the criminologist's argument is properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

[darkatillam2]

I <3 your name.

GSL ftw.


IM Nestea is a beast this season....carry on

[Marinekingprime]

Zerg? Yuk.

[suspicious android]

Can someone please show me the form they would use to diagram this supporter assumption question (using A,B,C,D)

Criminologist: The main purpose of most criminal organizations is to generate profits. The ongoing revolution in biotechnology and information technology promise to generate enormous profits. Therefore, criminal organizations will undoubtedly try to become involved in these areas.

I don't think diagramming this one would be particularly helpful, but you could say:

criminal organization seeks X ---> X is a way to generate profits

biotech and information tech are ways to generate profits

Therefore: criminal organizations seek biotech and information tech

[510Chicken]

criminal organization seeks X ---> X is a way to generate profits

Part of the problem with this is that it assumes the answer. It's not clear in the stimulus that criminal groups seek new ways to generate more profit. That component is only included in the answer. In fact, it is that distinction, the main purpose being to make profits and that including the search for new sources of profit, that makes answer (A) correct. The world of (C) would be just as acceptable to a criminal group whose goal was only to make profits, since they would already be making money, unless expansion/investment was key.

I think you need to include:
The main purpose of a criminal group is to make profit.
All groups who's main purpose is to make profit invest in all new ways to make profit (D).
Therefore, criminal groups invest in all new ways to make profit.

Then, Biotech is a new way to make profit.
Therefore, criminal groups invest in biotech.

Basically, the question asks you to connect the goal of profits with the investment in all new sources of profits.

P.S. MarineKingPrime/Terran are definitely the most fun to watch.

[suspicious android]

Part of the problem with this is that it assumes the answer. It's not clear in the stimulus that criminal groups seek new ways to generate more profit.

Huh? Not sure what you mean by "the problem with this". That criminal groups seek new ways to generate more profit is not clear in either the stimulus or in my diagram of it, because the diagram is just of the stimulus. It just says that if it's a criminal organization, it will seek profits; biotech and infotech are potential profit sources; therefore criminal organizations will seek biotech and infotech. That's a classic case of affirming the consequent. Answer choice (D) suggests that being a potential source of profits is not only necessary, but also sufficient for any source from a technological revolution. In that case, the argument would be fine.

[510Chicken]

Part of the problem with this is that it assumes the answer. It's not clear in the stimulus that criminal groups seek new ways to generate more profit.

Huh? Not sure what you mean by "the problem with this". That criminal groups seek new ways to generate more profit is not clear in either the stimulus or in my diagram of it, because the diagram is just of the stimulus. It just says that if it's a criminal organization, it will seek profits; biotech and infotech are potential profit sources; therefore criminal organizations will seek biotech and infotech. That's a classic case of affirming the consequent. Answer choice (D) suggests that being a potential source of profits is not only necessary, but also sufficient for any source from a technological revolution. In that case, the argument would be fine.

"Potential profit sources" is what's important.

There is a difference between generating profits and seeking new sources of profits. I can satisfy the first condition by already owning a profitable business, without having to invest in new technology (such as in "C"). Unless generating profits also necessitates being involved in new sources of profit, there's no way to connect liking profits to investing in biotech, because I'm already making the former.

I don't think you can justify the use of the word "seek" because that link is the necessary assumption the answer provides; that the goal of generating profits also includes investing in new sources of profits.

EDIT: Answer (D) is not saying that (new tech) biotech is sufficient to generate profits. That's already given in the stimulus. It's saying that if your goal is to generate profits, then you also seek new profits in new tech. That's what lets you connect the two.

[suspicious android]

I don't think you can justify the use of the word "seek" because that link is the necessary assumption the answer provides; that the goal of generating profits also includes investing in new sources of profits.

"Seek" may be a quick and dirty paraphrase here, but the goal of the explanation is not to replicate the precision of the original LSAT question, it's to get across the point at issue. Here, there is undoubtedly an error in the argument in that it affirms part of the consequent, which you have said yourself in so many words.

P:criminal org --> wants profits
P:A & B are potentially profitable
C: Criminal wants A & B

Unwarranted assumption: A & B are the sorts of profits criminal orgs will be interested in.
(D): All organizations that want profits want all things such as A & B; so being this type of profit source is sufficient to attract the attention of criminal organizations

Now, can you say they don't necessarily want new profit, it's just that their primary goal is to generate them, so the necessary condition should be"goal is to generate profits". If you want to draw that distinction, great, but you can cut to the heart of the issue by eliding those details.

EDIT: Answer (D) is not saying that (new tech) biotech is sufficient to generate profits.

Nor did I mean to suggest that. I think it's clear that I meant (D) suggests being a profit source derived from a tech revolution is sufficient for it to be the target of any profit-motivated organization.

[510Chicken]

P:criminal org --> wants profits
P:A & B are potentially profitable
C: Criminal wants A & B

Unwarranted assumption: A & B are the sorts of profits criminal orgs will be interested in.
(D): All organizations that want profits want all things such as A & B; so being this type of profit source is sufficient to attract the attention of criminal organizations

And I agree. The missing assumption is clear above. It's not here:

criminal organization seeks X ---> X is a way to generate profits

biotech and information tech are ways to generate profits

Therefore: criminal organizations seek biotech and information tech

That criminal groups seek new ways to generate more profit is not clear in either the stimulus or in my diagram of it, because the diagram is just of the stimulus.

If your original diagram was of only the stimulus, it should have been impossible for you to draw the final conclusion, because the necessary assumption was missing. But you managed to anyway, because you implicitly embedded it into "criminal organization seeks a way to generate profits". Which is cool, but it makes for an incomplete explanation, specifically of what that assumption is. But now that problem is solved. So awesome.

[suspicious android]

If your original diagram was of only the stimulus, it should have been impossible for you to draw the final conclusion, because the necessary assumption was missing. But you managed to anyway, because you implicitly embedded it into "criminal organization seeks a way to generate profits". Which is cool, but it makes for an incomplete explanation, specifically of what that assumption is. But now that problem is solved. So awesome.

I diagrammed the argument in the stimulus--as it was, not as it maybe should have been. You can clearly diagram an invalid argument. That's what the stimulus was, and what the OP asked about. So it was a bit annoying for you to correct me when I wasn't implying the argument I gave was valid.

Oh, and it was a sufficient assumption, not a necessary one, now that I'm annoyed.

[510Chicken]

Now, can you say they don't necessarily want new profit, it's just that their primary goal is to generate them, so the necessary condition should be"goal is to generate profits". If you want to draw that distinction, great, but you can cut to the heart of the issue by eliding those details.

Ahhh I see. But then I don't think you can gloss over the difference, since the answer makes the distinction between the purpose of generating profits and investing in the promise of profits and before it conflates them.

The sufficient assumption (touche ) is that they are the same. The original diagram is an unfair representation of the stimulus since it includes the assumption by phrasing them both as "ways to generate profits". That is, the stimulus does not say that "generating profit" and "investing in the promise of profit" are the same, it just assumes it. The diagram says it explicitly (by representing them the same way), which means you would actually miss the gap if you drew it that way.

Basically, I was confused because I think your original diagram is actually valid.

criminal organization seeks X ---> X is [all ways] to generate profits

biotech and information tech are ways to generate profits

Therefore: criminal organizations seek biotech and information tech

I clearly inserted the bracketed, but I attributed its absence to the "quick and dirty", and think the meaning it changes is different from the meaning in the answer (what's important is not the inclusiveness of "any" (the answer could have specified instead), but in the fact that generating profit is the same as investing in the promise of profit). The argument presented this way is valid.

This is what I thought it should have looked like:

criminal organization seeks X (X is generating profits)

(D) seek X --> invest in things that promise profit

biotech and information tech promise profit

Therefore: criminal organizations invest in biotech and information tech

The unbolded are given. The distinction between generating profits and investing in them is present, bridged by the bolded answer.

So it was a bit annoying for you to correct me when I wasn't implying the argument I gave was valid.

Sorry I don't think I terribly off, but I understand, didn't mean to offend, and if I misunderstood your original post well then...

[suspicious android]

The unbolded are given. The distinction between generating profits and investing in them is present, bridged by the bolded answer... misunderstood your original post well then...

We cool, I only engaged you because you had some interesting insights.