PT 37-2-12, Any concern over equating ~Bad = Good Forum

[timmydoeslsat]

This stimulus requires the test taker to make the leap from ~bad to good.

When you make this question stem a proper inference...it makes this a little more troubling to me. Most strongly supported question stem...and I would have no beef.

And it is clear that the test writers are wanting you to make this long conditional chain.

However, it still stands that just because something is not bad does not mean that the thing is good.

My point? I would like for the question stem to be different. Just my opinion.

[thestalkmore]

This stimulus requires the test taker to make the leap from ~bad to good.

When you make this question stem a proper inference...it makes this a little more troubling to me. Most strongly supported question stem...and I would have no beef.

And it is clear that the test writers are wanting you to make this long conditional chain.

However, it still stands that just because something is not bad does not mean that the thing is good.

My point? I would like for the question stem to be different. Just my opinion.

Question doesn't require that leap at all. Stem involves natural and cultural conditions. We don't need to go from ~bad to good in the chain to know that the creation of a good meal involves both conditions.

[VasaVasori]

.

[timmydoeslsat]

Question doesn't require that leap at all. Stem involves natural and cultural conditions. We don't need to go from ~bad to good in the chain to know that the creation of a good meal involves both conditions.

Tell me how we do not have to go from ~bad to good? You must to arrive at choice A.

[Paraflam]

Umm, what?

The argument depends on a chain of cause and effect. It starts at the end result and works backwards, so the chain looks like this:
Culture that maintains natural resources --> good farming --> good soil --> good food --> good meal

(A) says that a good meal depends on cultural and natural conditions. Following the chain of cause and effect proves that this is true. This has nothing to do with ~bad = good.

[timmydoeslsat]

Couple of things.

First, this is not cause and effect reasoning.

Second, your chain is backwards.

Third, tell me how you reasoned from good meal ---> good food without equivocating the terms ~bad and good.

[Paraflam]

Lol, the chain is not backwards, and Rosen absolutely presents a chain of reasoning.

Here, start with applying this to the chain of causation and see what happens:

The culture does not maintain its natural resources.

That means:
Without natural resources, we can't have good farming.
Without good farming, we can't have good soil.
Without good soil, we can't have good food.
Without good food, we can't have good meals.

Therefore, the creation of good meals depends on maintaining natural resources.

And once again, this has nothing to do with ~bad = good.

[timmydoeslsat]

Lol, the chain is not backwards, and Rosen absolutely presents a chain of reasoning.

Here, start with applying this to the chain of causation and see what happens:

The culture does not maintain its natural resources.

That means:
Without natural resources, we can't have good farming.
Without good farming, we can't have good soil.
Without good soil, we can't have good food.
Without good food, we can't have good meals.

Therefore, the creation of good meals depends on maintaining natural resources.

And once again, this has nothing to do with ~bad = good.

I bolded and underlined the issue with your reasoning. Where do you get the idea that good food is necessary for good meals? We know that ~bad food is necessary for good meals.

Also, you chain is backwards. If I follow your arrows in your prior post, I go from conditions to good meal, which is not correct.

And this is not causation. To say that I cannot do A without B, means that B is necessary to me for A to exist. It does not necessarily introduce causation.

[VasaVasori]

.

[thestalkmore]

Evaluating the logic of the chain isn't required in any way to come to the right answer. The first few words "One cannot prepare a good meal" introduces the fact that the speaker is speaking about the conditions requires to create a good meal. The chain the speaker includes includes natural and cultural conditions that he asserts are in some way related to the creation of a good meal. A is therefore the right answer, independent of whatever this good ~bad shit you guys are unnecessarily complicating it with.

[VasaVasori]

.

[timmydoeslsat]

A is therefore the right answer, independent of whatever this good ~bad shit you guys are unnecessarily complicating it with.

I suppose I will have to lay it out for you...

Good Meal ---> ~Bad Food

Good Food ---> ~Bad Soil

Maintain Good Soil ---> Good Farming ---> Culture


So not only is there equivocation between good/~bad food, there is also equivocation between good/~bad soil.

Although it is true that the stimulus begins by stating one cannot create a good meal with bad food, this simply gives us the idea of (as stated above) Good Meal --->~Bad Food.

You must equivocate from ~Bad Food to Good Food if you wish to continue on the chain of logic.

I can say for a fact that maintaining good soil requires both good farming and culture.

However, to say that a good meal requires culture must involve the idea of equivocation between ~bad/good.

Since this is a proper inference question, is it truly proper to equivocate those words? I say it is not.

[timmydoeslsat]

Bumped for thestalkmore. You are a poster that has earned respect in my eyes with your pt scores I have seen. I am curious if you see the stimulus the way I see it after having laid it out.

[thestalkmore]

*Rubs temples, takes another shot*

A is therefore the right answer, independent of whatever this good ~bad shit you guys are unnecessarily complicating it with.

I suppose I will have to lay it out for you...

I'm well acquainted enough with social mores to know that it probably isn't the best idea to insinuate that the person you're asking advice from is dense or stupid.

Earned respect

Ok whatever, all forgiven, etc etc.

Let me lay it out for you.

I understand the chain just fine. What you don't seem to understand is that the chain is ultimately irrelevant to answering the question. You do not, in any shape or form, need to process it to arrive at the correct answer. You can first eliminate the other choices, which are all obviously wrong, and get there, or you can refer to the interpretation in my earlier post.

You must equivocate from ~Bad Food to Good Food if you wish to continue on the chain of logic.

I don't want to continue on the chain of logic. It's irrelevant and ultimately, for you, a gambit of distraction. The correct answer demonstrates this more than anything. Good/bad considerations are removed from it entirely, with the exception of the "good meals," which we already know to be the end of the chain and, by extension, the topic under discussion in the question.

If the discussion you want to have here is a purely academic one--i.e. "Who cares about the most effective way to arrive at the answer? I want to talk about this chain"--I guess we can talk about the chain, but I insist that it's a waste of resources and will serve only to distract you further on similar questions.

HERE WE GO:
I'm not convinced, because of the issue of "equivocation" that you've mentioned, that the "chain" is actually a chain. It seems to me to require, as you've mentioned, presupposing that in the qualitative scale of things there exists only the binary elements "good" and "bad" as opposed to a gradated set that includes concepts like "fine" and "mediocre" and "so-so" and whatever. If we're being particularly assiduous in our application of logic, it would seem to me that you do have to either make a few unstated assumptions about the existential state of things in general or you have to conclude that the chain doesn't necessarily work.

At the same time...LSAC writes bad questions on occasion, and maybe this is one of them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the test-makers thought that assuming a good/bad duality was perfectly reasonable and that, therefore, they had written a fine chain of logic.

But again, I'm convinced that the takeaway here has to be that the chain doesn't matter.

[timmydoeslsat]

This is not an argument. There is not a conclusion. This is a long statement. A long statement that gives necessary condition after necessary condition.

Third, I felt it necessary to lay it out for you to show that equivocation is necessary since you wanted to eschew the idea. Your interpretation is necessarily flawed for you to believe that "good meals" is somehow a conclusion. Do you not see that cultural conditions cannot be seen as a requirement of good meals without equivocating between good and ~bad?

You stated, "If we're being particularly assiduous in our application of logic, it would seem to me that you do have to either make a few unstated assumptions about the existential state of things in general or you have to conclude that the chain doesn't necessarily work."

I suppose I am assiduous with logic in a proper inference question, as that is what it requires.

As the initial post stated, my problem is the idea of a proper inference question stem being present where a most strongly supported would be better served.

If it is the case that the test writers made a little bit of a stretch, that is something I would be ok with of course.

[thestalkmore]

Look, I'm drunk. I used the word "conclusion" in a sense other than that pertaining strictly to arguments. What I meant was "end," as in "the end of the chain we're talking about." My b, as they say on the mean streets of LB.

My interpretation isn't flawed at all. My use of proper terminology during intoxication is lazy. I don't see how you don't understand this.

[timmydoeslsat]

Look, I'm drunk. I used the word "conclusion" in a sense other than that pertaining strictly to arguments. What I meant was "end," as in "the end of the chain we're talking about." My b, as they say on the mean streets of LB.

My interpretation isn't flawed at all. My use of proper terminology during intoxication is lazy. I don't see how you don't understand this.

Let me attempt to understand your reasoning for why you believe that culture conditions is a requirement of good meals.

First, I know that you must realize that simply because good meals is at the beginning of this statement does not let you infer that what happens at the end is necessary for it. Since that is the case, I am wishing for you to describe in more detail as to how you know that good meals requires the culture conditions. You must have followed some sort of chain of logic. Surely you are not simply looking at the beginning and ending of a statement.