Preptest 26 sec-3 #21 Forum

[ltowns1]

Is there any tip that you guys have for finding he weakness n this argument without using conditional reasoning? For example, should I look for the necessary premise in the argument? Just trying to figure out how to find the weakness in the premise quicker.

[rbrown0824]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by finding the weakness in the argument. The question is asking us to identify the assumption that would make the conclusion completely true - a.k.a. the sufficient assumption. To attack these problems, it's usually best to identify the conclusion, then locate the supports the author uses, then look for the holes between the two.

So for this one, the conclusion is: to be successful, commercial computer software cannot require users to memorize unfamiliar commands . I think the easiest way to locate this without getting into any conditional language is to pay close attention to the words "as a result" - which often indicate a conclusion. The first three lines of the argument could literally say anything at all, but once we see "as a result" we know that whatever information the author was previously discussing, has produced what follows after the words "as a result."

After locating the conclusion, the easiest way to identify the supports (premises) is to ask the question "why." Why does the author believe that in order to be successful, software can't require users to memorize unfamiliar commands? The answer is located in the first sentence: it's expensive to train people to use software that requires memorization, and the prime purchasers of computer software won't purchase any software that requires high cost to train staff.

For me, the easiest way to evaluate and find the holes in the argument is to ask "Does the conclusion have to be true on the basis of the author's supports?" In other words, does the fact that most prime purchasers of computer software will refuse to buy the software that requires memorization, prevent that software from being successful? NO! What if the software that requires memorization is bought by a company who isn't a prime producer of software? Can't it still become successful? The argument doesn't allow for this possibility. It is basically saying that if we want the software to be successful, we have to cut out the memorization component so that the prime purchasers of software will buy it. The argument is implying that without the support of the prime purchasers, the software in question will not be successful; however, it never states this outright. Therefore, the correct answer to this question will address this unstated premise.

Answer choice (C) restates what I just discussed above. It says that the commercial software won't be successful unless prime purchasers buy it. Prime purchasers are necessary for the software to be successful. Without them, the software cannot be successful. Does this make sense?

[ltowns1]

By finding the weakness I meant which premise to key in on. For me the conclusion is always pretty easy to find, but I have problems figuring out which premise to focus on from time to time. Actually, I'm starting to do what you said here more often, and it has worked but for this one it was harder to identify the premise I needed to focus on.

[Ron (PowerScore)]

Hi ltowns1,

I thought I'd throw my two cents in. First, a quick comment on conditional reasoning, and then a direct response about how to speed through this question a bit more quickly without explicitly diagramming (or even focusing on) the conditionality.

First, avoiding conditional reasoning in your prephrase process is counterproductive over the long term. With properly focused practice, conditional reasoning can become a tremendous ally as you go through the test. If you approach this question using conditional reasoning, the prephrase is incredibly specific and you would be highly unlikely to overlook the correct answer choice or be tricked by one of the incorrect answer choices. If you choose not to master conditional reasoning, you're essentially setting an artificial limit on your potential score increase.

But to answer your direct question, it is possible to get a good prephrase without explicitly considering conditional reasoning, although again, I don't recommend it.

This question is what we at PowerScore refer to as a Justify the Conclusion question. As you know, you're looking for an answer choice that proves the conclusion is valid. And it is accurate to say that you are looking for an assumption sufficient to prove the conclusion is valid.

To do that, as you first indicated, you need to find the argument's weakness. In this case, the weakness is that the author infers something about the success of commercial computer software, but the premises never talked about what it would take for commercial computer software to be successful, per se. It's true that the first premise talked about the buying habits of "prime purchasers," but we have no reason to think that the overall success rises and falls on the willingness of prime purchasers to buy it.

So, we can say right away that in order to prove the conclusion is valid, the correct answer choice will have to tell us more about what it takes for the software to be successful. By scanning through the answer choices, you can see that only answer choices (A) and (C) directly reference software being successful. (Note: I'm not saying that the actual word "successful" must be used. A synonymous term would work just as well. But none of the other answer choices include either the word "successful" or some synonymous term.)

To get a bit more specific about the prephrase, we can bring in the premises. In Justify the Conclusion questions, when there is a brand new term, like "successful" here, in the conclusion, the correct answer choice will link that new term up with a previously unpaired term in the premises. So, we need to find the term in the premises that has not previously been linked up to another premise or the conclusion.

Recasting and reordering the terms a bit to make the point more clear, here is how the argument proceeded:

Premise: If training costs are high, then prime purchasers won't buy

Premise: if memorization of unfamiliar commands is required, then training costs are high (i.e., "expensive to teach")

Conclusion: If software is to be successful, then cannot require memorization of unfamiliar commands

I've put the terms in different font colors (please let me know if you are unable to distinguish the colors). As you can see, the unpaired terms deal with prime purchasers and success. So, even without focusing on the conditional reasoning, we can prephrase that the correct answer choice will most likely tell us something about the success of the software being influenced by whether or not prime purchasers buy it.

Here is where bringing in conditional reasoning perfects your prephrase. By understanding the absolute nature of the conditional relationships involved in the stimulus, we can focus on answer choice (C). Otherwise, you might be tempted by answer choice (A), although the lack of definitiveness in answer choice (A) makes that choice unattractive for a Justify answer choice even in the absence of conditional reasoning as the method of argumentation. A Justify answer choice eliminates the gray area, perfecting the conclusion. Here, answer choice (C) fits that bill even in the absence of a good understanding of conditional reasoning.

Hope this helped. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks!

Ron Gore

[ltowns1]

Hi ltowns1,

I thought I'd throw my two cents in. First, a quick comment on conditional reasoning, and then a direct response about how to speed through this question a bit more quickly without explicitly diagramming (or even focusing on) the conditionality.

First, avoiding conditional reasoning in your prephrase process is counterproductive over the long term. With properly focused practice, conditional reasoning can become a tremendous ally as you go through the test. If you approach this question using conditional reasoning, the prephrase is incredibly specific and you would be highly unlikely to overlook the correct answer choice or be tricked by one of the incorrect answer choices. If you choose not to master conditional reasoning, you're essentially setting an artificial limit on your potential score increase.

But to answer your direct question, it is possible to get a good prephrase without explicitly considering conditional reasoning, although again, I don't recommend it.

This question is what we at PowerScore refer to as a Justify the Conclusion question. As you know, you're looking for an answer choice that proves the conclusion is valid. And it is accurate to say that you are looking for an assumption sufficient to prove the conclusion is valid.

To do that, as you first indicated, you need to find the argument's weakness. In this case, the weakness is that the author infers something about the success of commercial computer software, but the premises never talked about what it would take for commercial computer software to be successful, per se. It's true that the first premise talked about the buying habits of "prime purchasers," but we have no reason to think that the overall success rises and falls on the willingness of prime purchasers to buy it.

So, we can say right away that in order to prove the conclusion is valid, the correct answer choice will have to tell us more about what it takes for the software to be successful. By scanning through the answer choices, you can see that only answer choices (A) and (C) directly reference software being successful. (Note: I'm not saying that the actual word "successful" must be used. A synonymous term would work just as well. But none of the other answer choices include either the word "successful" or some synonymous term.)

To get a bit more specific about the prephrase, we can bring in the premises. In Justify the Conclusion questions, when there is a brand new term, like "successful" here, in the conclusion, the correct answer choice will link that new term up with a previously unpaired term in the premises. So, we need to find the term in the premises that has not previously been linked up to another premise or the conclusion.

Recasting and reordering the terms a bit to make the point more clear, here is how the argument proceeded:

Premise: If training costs are high, then prime purchasers won't buy

Premise: if memorization of unfamiliar commands is required, then training costs are high (i.e., "expensive to teach")

Conclusion: If software is to be successful, then cannot require memorization of unfamiliar commands

I've put the terms in different font colors (please let me know if you are unable to distinguish the colors). As you can see, the unpaired terms deal with prime purchasers and success. So, even without focusing on the conditional reasoning, we can prephrase that the correct answer choice will most likely tell us something about the success of the software being influenced by whether or not prime purchasers buy it.

Here is where bringing in conditional reasoning perfects your prephrase. By understanding the absolute nature of the conditional relationships involved in the stimulus, we can focus on answer choice (C). Otherwise, you might be tempted by answer choice (A), although the lack of definitiveness in answer choice (A) makes that choice unattractive for a Justify answer choice even in the absence of conditional reasoning as the method of argumentation. A Justify answer choice eliminates the gray area, perfecting the conclusion. Here, answer choice (C) fits that bill even in the absence of a good understanding of conditional reasoning.

Hope this helped. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks!

Ron Gore

Yeah I know, I have the LR bible book, and I'm pretty good at conditional reasoning when I want to be, but I'm just lazy thanks for the advice.

[manchas]

Not the original poster here, but just wanted to thank Ron for that detailed explanation. It was very helpful.