PT 45, Sec 4, Q#10

User avatar
californihuh
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:15 am

PT 45, Sec 4, Q#10

Postby californihuh » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:53 pm

I understand why the answer is (B), instead of what I chose: (C), however, if the premise was in fact true and that monastic authors were a representative sample of medieval societies, would answer (C) be correct?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this temporal fallacy issue.

User avatar
ScrabbleChamp
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:09 am

Re: PT 45, Sec 4, Q#10

Postby ScrabbleChamp » Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:55 pm

TBH, why stress on this? The answer is B, you know why, you know why your answer is wrong... Move on. All this excess thinking is going to do is slow you down.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: PT 45, Sec 4, Q#10

Postby suspicious android » Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:06 pm

californihuh wrote:I understand why the answer is (B), instead of what I chose: (C), however, if the premise was in fact true and that monastic authors were a representative sample of medieval societies, would answer (C) be correct?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this temporal fallacy issue.


I'm not sure how you're trying to match the language in C with the argument. What is the contemporary standard, and why is it inappropriate? And what do you mean by "temporal fallacy"? Like a continuity error?

User avatar
californihuh
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:15 am

Re: PT 45, Sec 4, Q#10

Postby californihuh » Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:29 pm

suspicious android wrote:
californihuh wrote:I understand why the answer is (B), instead of what I chose: (C), however, if the premise was in fact true and that monastic authors were a representative sample of medieval societies, would answer (C) be correct?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this temporal fallacy issue.


I'm not sure how you're trying to match the language in C with the argument. What is the contemporary standard, and why is it inappropriate? And what do you mean by "temporal fallacy"? Like a continuity error?

I guess "continuity error" is another way to put it. Comparing what was the sentiment in medieval times to contemporary times and then concluding that the old ways was much less concerned about this particular subject than recent eras seems to be a fallacy, no?

Maybe I'm overthinking this. I've been up for 2 days and running on fumes so I have no clue if I'm making any sense right now.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: PT 45, Sec 4, Q#10

Postby suspicious android » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:20 pm

californihuh wrote:I guess "continuity error" is another way to put it. Comparing what was the sentiment in medieval times to contemporary times and then concluding that the old ways was much less concerned about this particular subject than recent eras seems to be a fallacy, no?


Hmm, comparing the old ideas to the new ideas and then condluding that the old ones were less concerned about the subject in question? That's not actually a fallacy. It's such a broad description of what's going on it misses what was actually bad about the argument.

The argument is definitely fallacious, but it's not a continuity error. That would be like "Monks used to think xyz, so now they think xyz." I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "temporal fallacy", but the fact they're talking about the past isn't really a problem in this argument in any way that I'm seeing.

User avatar
californihuh
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:15 am

Re: PT 45, Sec 4, Q#10

Postby californihuh » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:48 am

suspicious android wrote:
californihuh wrote:I guess "continuity error" is another way to put it. Comparing what was the sentiment in medieval times to contemporary times and then concluding that the old ways was much less concerned about this particular subject than recent eras seems to be a fallacy, no?


Hmm, comparing the old ideas to the new ideas and then condluding that the old ones were less concerned about the subject in question? That's not actually a fallacy. It's such a broad description of what's going on it misses what was actually bad about the argument.

The argument is definitely fallacious, but it's not a continuity error. That would be like "Monks used to think xyz, so now they think xyz." I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "temporal fallacy", but the fact they're talking about the past isn't really a problem in this argument in any way that I'm seeing.

thanks. going to sleep well tonight!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros and 10 guests