batlaw wrote:harveybirdman502 wrote:nimbus cloud wrote:harveybirdman502 wrote:Anyone have tips on required assumption questions? I find the negation method a bit difficult to apply. It seems like some correct answers apply directly to one premise, which if it falls apart, so does the argument and conclusion. Others seem to apply to the overall connected argument.
For example, on
PT 32 the answer choice is about one element in one of the premises. I got it right but how are you to determine which negations actually apply directly to the assumption? Also, can you use sufficient strategies here by identifying new elements in the conclusion and elements in the premises that do not appear in the conclusion?
These Qs have been a nightmare for me ever since the beginning. I don't know why this is so difficult. Is there only one assumption in each argument for these questions?
Which question? There's a couple of necessary assumption q's on PT32.
21 on Section 1. It's obvious why the answer is right but the question format seems quite different from others where an assumption is connecting premises and conclusion. 1 premise is knocked out and it makes the argument fall apart, but it seems like most other questions address a broader assumption structured to encompass both the premises and conclusion.
"A smoker trying to quit is more likely to succeed if his or her doctor greatly exaggerates the dangers of smoking. Similar strategies can be used to break other habits. But since such strategies involve deception, individuals cannot easily adopt them unless a doctor or some other third party provides the warning. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) People tend to believe
whatever doctors tell them.
(B)
Most of the techniques that help people quit smoking can also help people break other habits.
(C) The more the relevant danger is exaggerated, the more likely one is to break one’s habit.
(D) People
generally do not find it easy to deceive themselves.
(E) A doctor is
justified in deceiving a patient
whenever doing so is likely to make the patient healthier."
So going into this my pre-phrase/focus was on the bridge gap between the strategies involving deception and most individuals being unable to adopt them without doctor / third party.
For the negation method, I struggle a bit sometimes when I try too hard to directly re-word the answer choice to ensure it was correct. Another way to use the negation idea is to eliminate wrong answers. So I tend to do better when I go through the choices and ask myself "does this have to be true?"
(A) Nope, people don't have to believe whatever doctors tell them (too broad in scope). Also, this doesn't address the difference in handling deception between individuals and doctors.
(B) No. Again this is too broad. It could be true but it doesn't have to be true. Here we are only talking about strategies that involve exaggeration of dangers.
(C) No. Again this expands the idea.
(E) Nope. Justification does not enter the picture. Moreso, this goes beyond the deception to change habits discussed.
(D) Yes, has to be true. If people found it easy to deceive themselves why would they need doctors/3rd party to deceive them? [Also, I like the term generally here compared to the overly strong qualifiers in the other choices.]
I will say on my first quick pass I eliminated B, C, E and then A.
