PT 21-S2 #25 Forum

[ltowns1]

First let me say I now get why "E" is correct, but can someone explain the back part of answer "A" to me? [quote][/quote]"but only because it is not complete" the argument says I disagree that the sun's luminosity controls land temps on earth because no aspect is controlled by a single variable. You can't infer that the meteorologist believes that the statistician's answer is not complete? Of course this is NOT what the statistician believes, because he left room for other factors, but I thought this is what the meteorologist incorrectly assumed.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

I think you're misreading the statistician's argument.

Of course this is NOT what the statistician believes, because he left room for other factors, but I thought this is what the meteorologist incorrectly assumed.

The statistician's conclusion is "the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth."

He actually isn't leaving any room for any other contributory factors here. By saying that the brightness essentially controls, he is saying that luminosity is functionally the only thing that matters.

If he had said instead something like "land temperatures on Earth are affected by the Sun's luminosity", or "the Sun's luminosity one of the factors that controls land temperatures on Earth", or "the Sun's luminosity is a causal factor of land temperatures on Earth" - if he'd phrased in any of those ways, he WOULD have left room for other potential factors. Instead, he made a strong claim that the luminosity is controlling, and that doesn't allow for anything else to matter.

As a result, the Meteorologist isn't rejecting a 'correct-but-incomplete' explanation. Since the explanation is that one factor controls, if we accept that no single factor can ever control, the Statistician would have to be wrong.

It's easy to read in more reasonable wiggle room into the Statistician's argument than he actually leaves.

What do you think?

[ltowns1]

I think you're misreading the statistician's argument.

Of course this is NOT what the statistician believes, because he left room for other factors, but I thought this is what the meteorologist incorrectly assumed.

The statistician's conclusion is "the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth."

He actually isn't leaving any room for any other contributory factors here. By saying that the brightness essentially controls, he is saying that luminosity is functionally the only thing that matters.

If he had said instead something like "land temperatures on Earth are affected by the Sun's luminosity", or "the Sun's luminosity one of the factors that controls land temperatures on Earth", or "the Sun's luminosity is a causal factor of land temperatures on Earth" - if he'd phrased in any of those ways, he WOULD have left room for other potential factors. Instead, he made a strong claim that the luminosity is controlling, and that doesn't allow for anything else to matter.

As a result, the Meteorologist isn't rejecting a 'correct-but-incomplete' explanation. Since the explanation is that one factor controls, if we accept that no single factor can ever control, the Statistician would have to be wrong.

It's easy to read in more reasonable wiggle room into the Statistician's argument than he actually leaves.

What do you think?

Well that goes back to what i initially thought, but then I looked at a discussion on ur forum boards, and the individuals up there seemed like they were saying that the statement "Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth." was an indication that he actually did leave room for other explanations, so I just assumed they were right. Guess I should have stuck with my original idea. Now I see I just misread what they were saying. Thanks Christine.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

That idea was posted by a student, not an MLSAT instructor. While a significant portion of geverett's explanation was spot on, I think he was ever so slightly off in his description of the argument there. Notice that geverett was suggesting that even though the Statistician himself may have left room for other factors (again, I disagree with that), that the Meteorologist believed the Statistician wasn't leaving any room for other factors.

That's a much more roundabout (and questionable) way of coming to the same functional result.

[ltowns1]

That idea was posted by a student, not an MLSAT instructor. While a significant portion of geverett's explanation was spot on, I think he was ever so slightly off in his description of the argument there. Notice that geverett was suggesting that even though the Statistician himself may have left room for other factors (again, I disagree with that), that the Meteorologist believed the Statistician wasn't leaving any room for other factors.

That's a much more roundabout (and questionable) way of coming to the same functional result.

Ok thanks for the help.. You guys are awesome by the way, I've gotten so much free advice from you guys!

[ltowns1]

I think you're misreading the statistician's argument.

Of course this is NOT what the statistician believes, because he left room for other factors, but I thought this is what the meteorologist incorrectly assumed.

The statistician's conclusion is "the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth."

He actually isn't leaving any room for any other contributory factors here. By saying that the brightness essentially controls, he is saying that luminosity is functionally the only thing that matters.


If he had said instead something like "land temperatures on Earth are affected by the Sun's luminosity", or "the Sun's luminosity one of the factors that controls land temperatures on Earth", or "the Sun's luminosity is a causal factor of land temperatures on Earth" - if he'd phrased in any of those ways, he WOULD have left room for other potential factors. Instead, he made a strong claim that the luminosity is controlling, and that doesn't allow for anything else to matter.

As a result, the Meteorologist isn't rejecting a 'correct-but-incomplete' explanation. Since the explanation is that one factor controls, if we accept that no single factor can ever control, the Statistician would have to be wrong.

It's easy to read in more reasonable wiggle room into the Statistician's argument than he actually leaves.

What do you think?

One more thing, considering what you just said, one could conclude M's statement about the fact no one thing controls the temps. is actually ok as a premise? Which I guess you can infer seeing as how the flaw came from the other premise and there is only two premises

[Christine (MLSAT)]

One more thing, considering what you just said, one could conclude M's statement about the fact no one thing controls the temps. is actually ok as a premise? Which I guess you can infer seeing as how the flaw came from the other premise and there is only two premises

That's an interesting question, actually.

I wouldn't exactly say that there are two premises here - instead, we have what you might consider an embedded premise. Consider this example:

• PREMISE: John says that apples are always poisonous.
  CONCLUSION: Therefore, the apple on the table is poisonous.

"Apples are always poisonous" is not actually a premise in this argument. My premise is that John says that. I have to be assuming that John is correct for my argument to work.

Now, if we *do* establish that John is correct, then we would at that point accept the idea that all apples are poisonous - and of course, there's nothing problematic about then concluding that the apple on the table must be poisonous.

Same essential thing is happening here. If all those professional meteorologists are right, and it's actually correct that 'no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable', then the meteorologist's conclusion is a lot safer - we could quibble over whether "land temperatures on Earth" qualified as a "significant aspect", but that's pretty trivial.

What do you think?

[ltowns1]

One more thing, considering what you just said, one could conclude M's statement about the fact no one thing controls the temps. is actually ok as a premise? Which I guess you can infer seeing as how the flaw came from the other premise and there is only two premises

That's an interesting question, actually.

I wouldn't exactly say that there are two premises here - instead, we have what you might consider an embedded premise. Consider this example:

• PREMISE: John says that apples are always poisonous.
  CONCLUSION: Therefore, the apple on the table is poisonous.

"Apples are always poisonous" is not actually a premise in this argument. My premise is that John says that. I have to be assuming that John is correct for my argument to work.

Now, if we *do* establish that John is correct, then we would at that point accept the idea that all apples are poisonous - and of course, there's nothing problematic about then concluding that the apple on the table must be poisonous.

Same essential thing is happening here. If all those professional meteorologists are right, and it's actually correct that 'no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable', then the meteorologist's conclusion is a lot safer - we could quibble over whether "land temperatures on Earth" qualified as a "significant aspect", but that's pretty trivial.

What do you think?

Thanks for that example, I think that's interesting because I think I get tripped up on questions like that. I bet PT 25 #9 section 4 ("about the curator has long maintained") is another example of that?

[Christine (MLSAT)]

It is indeed! Technically, the premise in that questions is the fact that the curator has long maintained blah blah blah. The author is making an assumption that the curator is correct.

Interestingly, question 9 doesn't target anything about that, though - instead, it raises an additional assumption being made. Even if the curator is correct, the author is also assuming the board will sell only the paintings that the curator thinks add no value.

However, question 10 does address the assumption that the curator is correct in her opinion. And here we might realize that the curator herself has said two things of interest: 1) these particular paintings are inferior and 2) therefore they add no value to the collection.

The correct weaken answer for Q10 accepts that the curator could be correct about the inferiority of the particular paintings, but raises idea that even in that case, such paintings would still add value to the overall collection. This would destroy the link to the curator's conclusion, which rips apart the argument as a whole.

Even though this question IS a case of an embedded, or reported premise, as long as you recognize that the curator has her own premise and conclusion, then you would treat her conclusion as a subsidiary conclusion of the entire argument. Weakening the link between the curator's first premise and the subsidiary conclusion of the argument will fit the bill here! So, you could get away with not recognizing the embedded issue - as long as you see this as a PREMISE-INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION-FINAL CONCLUSION structure.

Make sense?

[ltowns1]

It is indeed! Technically, the premise in that questions is the fact that the curator has long maintained blah blah blah. The author is making an assumption that the curator is correct.

Interestingly, question 9 doesn't target anything about that, though - instead, it raises an additional assumption being made. Even if the curator is correct, the author is also assuming the board will sell only the paintings that the curator thinks add no value.

However, question 10 does address the assumption that the curator is correct in her opinion. And here we might realize that the curator herself has said two things of interest: 1) these particular paintings are inferior and 2) therefore they add no value to the collection.

The correct weaken answer for Q10 accepts that the curator could be correct about the inferiority of the particular paintings, but raises idea that even in that case, such paintings would still add value to the overall collection. This would destroy the link to the curator's conclusion, which rips apart the argument as a whole.

Even though this question IS a case of an embedded, or reported premise, as long as you recognize that the curator has her own premise and conclusion, then you would treat her conclusion as a subsidiary conclusion of the entire argument. Weakening the link between the curator's first premise and the subsidiary conclusion of the argument will fit the bill here! So, you could get away with not recognizing the embedded issue - as long as you see this as a PREMISE-INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION-FINAL CONCLUSION structure.

Make sense?

Sure does thank you!