Hey guys!
So I got this question right, (about Martha and her edible flowers), but I used a different thought process then how it was explained.
I noticed that what it was a "some/some" quantifier, which is very weak, and when I saw it was P.F I looked for another "some/some" - which was choice "c" and it was correct.
Can I use this type of reasoning for all "PF" questions, or is it better to diagram them all out, on the chance that there are different types of PF questions? (this I only my 2nd week studying so I don't know if I can settle for this shortcut or diagram it out all the time)
Thanks!
Oct 1998 sextion 2 # 20 - Parralel flaw Forum
-
gnomgnomuch
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:34 pm
-
BPlaura
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:51 pm
Re: Oct 1998 sextion 2 # 20 - Parralel flaw
Not sure what explanation you looked at, but that's how I always approach this question: Martha invalidly tries to combine two "some" statements, so you need an answer choice that also tries to combine two "some" statements.
You can never draw additional conclusions by combining "some" statements, so the flaw is readily apparent here, which means diagramming it out isn't strictly necessary. However, most of the time, I would diagram it just to be safe. (For instance, an argument might be phrased with conditional language but have a flaw that is unrelated to the conditional statements - which you might not catch without diagramming it.)
Also, since you just started studying, for now I'd recommend that you err on the side of diagramming. It's good practice even if you don't end up using the diagram, and it will help you develop a better sense of when diagramming is necessary.
You can never draw additional conclusions by combining "some" statements, so the flaw is readily apparent here, which means diagramming it out isn't strictly necessary. However, most of the time, I would diagram it just to be safe. (For instance, an argument might be phrased with conditional language but have a flaw that is unrelated to the conditional statements - which you might not catch without diagramming it.)
Also, since you just started studying, for now I'd recommend that you err on the side of diagramming. It's good practice even if you don't end up using the diagram, and it will help you develop a better sense of when diagramming is necessary.
-
Christine (MLSAT)
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm
Re: Oct 1998 sextion 2 # 20 - Parralel flaw
A thousand times, this.BPlaura wrote:Also, since you just started studying, for now I'd recommend that you err on the side of diagramming. It's good practice even if you don't end up using the diagram, and it will help you develop a better sense of when diagramming is necessary.
OP, just to clarify, when you say that you noticed the stimulus had two 'some' statement, and that's weak, were you JUST noting that there are two 'some' statements, and 'some' is very soft language? Or had you actually noticed that the stimulus was attempting to combine the two some statements to make a new some statement (which is the heart of the flaw)?
The first observation is not enough. You don't want to go just looking for soft/weak language match-ups, or strong/extreme language match-ups. You've got to make sure you're focused on the flaw itself (which here does come out of the attempt at combining the 'some' statements.)
Apologies if that's what you meant, and you're totally on board with the flaw here, but I wasn't 100% certain which you meant from the post.
