PT 60 Sec 1 Q11 Forum

[evolution]

Can someone explain how (E) doesn't strengthen the argument?

The simplified version of the argument is because there's no longer any limitations, most universities offer more in-depth cosmo education.

So, I looked at the core like this:

inclusive --> in-depth cosmo

(E) is saying: ~inclusive --> ~ in depth cosmo.

Isn't this an example of where when the cause is absent, the effect is absent as well, so shouldn't this be a strengthener?

[Bilka]

We are connecting two ideas to strengthen this argument.


The conclusion: Most universities offer a more in depth and cosmopolitan education that ever before.

Premise: They are now offering more on the history of ancient periods and indigenous culture.


So our answer choice should sound something like "Universities offering more courses on ancient or/and indigenous cultures would be offering a more in depth and cosmopolitan education.


That is a variation of what we get in answer choice C.

edit:

E is wrong because we dont care what will happen in a history course that is not inclusive. All we care about is connecting inclusiveness to a more in depth and cosmopolitan education.

[evolution]

Shouldn't we be concerned with the effects of not being inclusive? After all, inclusiveness is whats causing a more cosmo education in the first place. So if we show that ~inclusiveness-->~cosmo, we can strengthen that casual argument by showing absent cause, the effect also doesn't occur.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

This is a great example of the dangers of oversimplifying the diagramming. Notice that the conclusion is not simply that today's education is in-depth and cosmopolitan. The conclusion is instead saying this education is more in depth and cosmopolitan than ever before.

There is a fundamental difference between making a comparative conclusion and a simple, binary fact (it's either true or it isn't).

For instance, let's say that I argued that Mary's cake was dryer than Betty's, because Mary mixed nuts into the batter and Betty didn't. Saying that cakes without nuts are moist doesn't strengthen this argument. It would support the idea that Betty's cake is moist, but I have no idea how it compares to Mary's. Both cakes might be very moist, but one a bit dryer than the other.

(E) does the same thing. It tells us that without the inclusiveness, the education will NOT be "in-depth and cosmopolitan", but it doesn't tell us how that really compares to inclusive education.

The whole "cause is absent, effect is absent" is only a strengthener in certain situations, and really needs to be used with utmost caution. Essentially, you only want to use that when you already know the effect is occurring (either you have both cause and effect, and are trying to prove the causal link, or you have the effect, and are trying to determine the possible cause). You can't really use it when you only have a known existing cause, and are merely predicting an effect. Consider the following scenario:

CONCLUSION: There's pollution in Awesome State. I bet it's going to kill off all the squirrels.
INVALID SUPPORT: After all, when there's zero pollution, no squirrels die.

This doesn't give us *any* real support that this imagined outcome will actually come to pass.

So, even if our original argument had been more binary, and not a comparative one, (E) would still not properly strengthen it. Just because non-inclusive education sucks, that doesn't support the idea that inclusive education will then NOT suck.

What do you think?

[Bilka]

Shouldn't we be concerned with the effects of not being inclusive? After all, inclusiveness is whats causing a more cosmo education in the first place. So if we show that ~inclusiveness-->~cosmo, we can strengthen that casual argument by showing absent cause, the effect also doesn't occur.

You are assuming it is the inclusiveness that is the cause of (or at least contributing to) the more cosmo education.

We need to supply the assumption or connection.

[evolution]

That clears it up, thanks so much.