Absence of cause...a weakener? Forum

[WaltGrace83]

I haven't intensely drilled weakener questions yet and so I anticipate that I will learn much more about weakeners later on before drilling but I did 39 on Friday and I am reviewing everything now. I am on PT39-S2-Q9 "Claude: to introduce..."

Lorraine gives this argument....

• Unwilling or unable to be informed → Referenda would lead to disaster

In #9, we want to weaken this claim!

• Now when we strengthen a claim (a Q type I have drilled), we usually want to show that:
  • (1) there is no alternative explanation;
    (2) that the same cause contributed to the same effect in an analogous situation;
    (3) that B did not actually cause A
    (4) that the absence of the cause correlated with the absence of the effect.
  I assumed that when we weaken a claim then that we do the opposite! We would show that
  • (1) there is an alternative explanation;
    (2) that the same cause did not contribute to the same effect in an analogous situation;
    (3) that B did actually cause A rather than A actually causing B as the argument presumes;
    (4) that the absence of the cause correlated with the appearance of the effect.
  This may be wrong. Someone do tell me if I am wrong in my general assumptions here.

Anyway, back to #9, particularly the correct answer choice (D)

• I am a little bit confused on the phrasing "precisely because" and whether or not this introduces a necessary or sufficient condition (I think necessary) either way this is what the argument is doing:
  
  • Unwilling or unable to be informed → Referenda would lead to disaster
    ~Unwilling
    
    Thus.....not disastrous?
  Now I know we don't have to PROVE that Lorraine is wrong but it seems odd to me that you wouldn't have to show BOTH the absence of the cause and the absence of the effect, something like "In a similar referenda, all the participants desired to be informed and contributed to a very successful new foreign policy with beneficial results." Do you see what I mean? Saying that ~cause and implying ~effect just seems a bit too weak of a weakener.

Someone please tell me what I am missing here! Thanks.

[Clyde Frog]

Just took a look at this problem.

Claude says we should introduce greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues.

Lorraine counters by saying that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, thus the referenda leading to foreign policy disaster.

So we understand that Lorraine thinks introducing greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues is a bad idea since she thinks that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, which leads to policy disaster.

We see a gap in her argument in that maybe the public would be willing or able if something was done (referenda).

(D) attacks Lorraine's argument by giving the assumption that maybe the public would be willing to become informed about policy issues if they had more influence (which is how I feel about US politics in general), thus possibly leading to a result different than a policy disaster.

With these two speaker weaken problems generally the correct answer will strengthen the argument being countered. Take a look at PT27 S1 Q10, PT30 S2 Q8, and PT37 S4 Q11.

[WaltGrace83]

Just took a look at this problem.

Claude says we should introduce greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues.

Lorraine counters by saying that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, thus the referenda leading to foreign policy disaster.

So we understand that Lorraine thinks introducing greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues is a bad idea since she thinks that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, which leads to policy disaster.

We see a gap in her argument in that maybe the public would be willing or able if something was done (referenda).

(D) attacks Lorraine's argument by giving the assumption that maybe the public would be willing to become informed about policy issues if they had more influence (which is how I feel about US politics in general), thus possibly leading to a result different than a policy disaster.

With these two speaker weaken problems generally the correct answer will strengthen the argument being countered. Take a look at PT27 S1 Q10, PT30 S2 Q8, and PT37 S4 Q11.

Wouldn't the other gap be that public being uninformed does not mean a disaster?

Either way, would merely showing the absence of a cause weaken the claim?

[Daily_Double]

.

[Clyde Frog]

Just took a look at this problem.

Claude says we should introduce greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues.

Lorraine counters by saying that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, thus the referenda leading to foreign policy disaster.

So we understand that Lorraine thinks introducing greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues is a bad idea since she thinks that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, which leads to policy disaster.

We see a gap in her argument in that maybe the public would be willing or able if something was done (referenda).

(D) attacks Lorraine's argument by giving the assumption that maybe the public would be willing to become informed about policy issues if they had more influence (which is how I feel about US politics in general), thus possibly leading to a result different than a policy disaster.

With these two speaker weaken problems generally the correct answer will strengthen the argument being countered. Take a look at PT27 S1 Q10, PT30 S2 Q8, and PT37 S4 Q11.

Wouldn't the other gap be that public being uninformed does not mean a disaster?

Either way, would merely showing the absence of a cause weaken the claim?

In regards to the question about the gap, not really because Lorraine's argument is centered around the fact that the public being uninformed leads to policy disaster. Thus, public uninformed about public policy > referenda leads to policy disaster. (D) says that the public has little desire to become informed on policy issues precisely (meaning being just that) because it has little power in policy decisions. The public would then have desire to become informed on policy issues, which could lead to a completely different result than a policy disaster.

The absence of a cause would essentially weaken the argument, since it does not guarantee the same conclusion. It could be the same conclusion, but there's a factor of doubt now.

[WaltGrace83]

Just took a look at this problem.

Claude says we should introduce greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues.

Lorraine counters by saying that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, thus the referenda leading to foreign policy disaster.

So we understand that Lorraine thinks introducing greater accountability into policy decisions by holding referenda on policy issues is a bad idea since she thinks that the public is unwilling or unable to become informed about policy issues, which leads to policy disaster.

We see a gap in her argument in that maybe the public would be willing or able if something was done (referenda).

(D) attacks Lorraine's argument by giving the assumption that maybe the public would be willing to become informed about policy issues if they had more influence (which is how I feel about US politics in general), thus possibly leading to a result different than a policy disaster.

With these two speaker weaken problems generally the correct answer will strengthen the argument being countered. Take a look at PT27 S1 Q10, PT30 S2 Q8, and PT37 S4 Q11.

Wouldn't the other gap be that public being uninformed does not mean a disaster?

Either way, would merely showing the absence of a cause weaken the claim?

In regards to the question about the gap, not really because Lorraine's argument is centered around the fact that the public being uninformed leads to policy disaster. Thus, public uninformed about public policy > referenda leads to policy disaster. (D) says that the public has little desire to become informed on policy issues precisely (meaning being just that) because it has little power in policy decisions. The public would then have desire to become informed on policy issues, which could lead to a completely different result than a policy disaster.

The absence of a cause would essentially weaken the argument, since it does not guarantee the same conclusion. It could be the same conclusion, but there's a factor of doubt now.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I understand that the argument is centered around this idea - I mean that is basically the whole argument - but are you implying that the conclusion of danger follows from a premise about being uninformed? Are you saying that the ONLY thing wrong with this argument is the temporal nature of it?