PT 36 Section 3 #25 Forum

[sdwarrior403]

I do not understand the reasoning behind this problem.

I can determine that based on the conditional in the stimulus, we can say ~result of social conditioning.

I can understand also that the problem is that we go from saying ~result of social conditioning...to then saying only innate dispositions of the human mind.

There could be other ways for the popularity to be explained.

So I do not understand how answer choice D is correct. We have already ruled out that social conditioning is a cause.

[sdwarrior403]

Bump

[sdwarrior403]

Bump again

[LionelHutzJD]

The conclusion says that it can be attributed ONLY to innate dispositions of the human mind. The way the stim got to this conclusion was by showing that it was not because of social conditioning. Therefore the flaw that the argument is making is that it is assuming we can reach one conclusion on the basis of something being false without ever showing that they actually can work together.

[sdwarrior403]

No doubt that the conclusion is not proven. The conclusion of only innate dispositions of the human mind is not supported simply by showing that social conditioning is not a cause. But there is no way that social conditioning and innate dispositions could both cause the popularity. We have flat out determined that social conditioning is not the cause.

The answer choice would work if the stimulus had read:

If social conditioning were THE ONLY cause of the popularity, then X.

We are told -X. This means we know that social conditioning is not the only cause. This is totally different than to say that social conditioning is not a a cause. The former is not precluded from jointly causing popularity, but the latter most definitely is.

So how do you reason that social conditioning could work together in causing X when we know that social conditioning does not cause X.

[LionelHutzJD]

No doubt that the conclusion is not proven. The conclusion of only innate dispositions of the human mind is not supported simply by showing that social conditioning is not a cause. But there is no way that social conditioning and innate dispositions could both cause the popularity. We have flat out determined that social conditioning is not the cause.

The answer choice would work if the stimulus had read:

If social conditioning were THE ONLY cause of the popularity, then X.

We are told -X. This means we know that social conditioning is not the only cause. This is totally different than to say that social conditioning is not a a cause. The former is not precluded from jointly causing popularity, but the latter most definitely is.

So how do you reason that social conditioning could work together in causing X when we know that social conditioning does not cause X.

You just answered it yourself!. You are confusing yourself and confusing me a little bit haha. You cant reason that it can work together without PROVING that it can. This is the flaw its committing.

[sdwarrior403]

The argument has proven that SC cannot cause the popularity.

To say that SC and ID jointly cause the popularity is you really saying that ID is causing the popularity.

To me this is like saying the following: Mark cannot help you win the lottery.

Mark and Mike can help you win the lottery.

The second statement is a bogus way of saying that Mike is the one helping you win the lottery. We already have a premise that says Mark cannot help. So for you to put the two together to say they are helping you win is ridiculous.

[VasaVasori]

.

[sdwarrior403]

It seems perfectly reasonable for me to say that my religion is not a result of my father's beliefs, yet there is no doubt that his beliefs affected my thought processes in some way and insofar as that is true he contributed to the development of my religion.

This a matter of semantics. I dont think it is fair to state that your religion did not result from your dad's beliefs. It was, according to you, a causal factor, although not the only one. I believe it is not accurate to portray that fact as you did. A better way to convey that fact, in my opinion, would be for you to say that your dad's beliefs was not the only cause of your religion.

[VasaVasori]

.

[sdwarrior403]

Tell me what difference, if any, these 2 statements have amongst each other.

A) If social conditioning was THE ONLY cause of the popularity, then X.

B) If social conditioning was the cause, then X.

We have -X established.

Do you agree that statement A would have removed semantic issues from this stimulus and answer choice?

Would you then agree that answer choice D would not make sense if this was the piece of evidence given:

If social conditioning were a causal factor, then X.

We have -X established.

That would then preclude an answer choice such as D, correct?

[VasaVasori]

.

[LionelHutzJD]

No it does not preclude D from being the answer because the question type is asking you about how the stimulus arrived at the conclusion.

[sdwarrior403]

Would the correct answer choice make sense if we established that social conditioning was not a causal factor?

I believe this is what I thought the evidence was establishing, when it actually was not making that kind of claim.

[LionelHutzJD]

It doesnt matter if its a causal factor. Its how the argument used it once to arrive at a particular conclusion unjustifiably.

[sdwarrior403]

No it does not preclude D from being the answer because the question type is asking you about how the stimulus arrived at the conclusion.

How the hell could SC affect popularity when we, hypothetically speaking, have established SC as a non causal FACTOR?

[sdwarrior403]

It doesnt matter if its a causal factor. Its how the argument used it once to arrive at a particular conclusion unjustifiably.

It does matter if the premises indicate whether something is a causal factor.