PT.30.S2.Q17 Forum

[Barack Obama 2.0]

Why is A Wrong?

In my opinion, this argument had several flaws, chief among them:
1) Faulty extrapolation: The argument presumes what is true for 600 board rooms of the largest corporations is true for the MOST IMPORTANT ones.
2) Falsely equating relationships: Presumes that the fact that a small percentage of those in the service industry become board members on these boards is sufficient to conclude that a small percentage/number of them are represented on the boards. e.g., Most A's are B's, so it follows that Most B's are A's.

I understand why the credited answer (B) is correct, but had a tough time eliminating (A) because it seems to address the issue of over exatrapolation which I identified as a flaw in the argument.

[Barack Obama 2.0]

After some careful review, I think I realize why (A) isn't correct. I erroneously concluded that the author was using faulty extrapolation however the author does no such thing, he just falsely equated two characteristics i.e., boardrooms of largest corporations = most important.. In order for there to be an extrapolation issue the author would have to say something like: A small percentage of service workers are board members of the largest corporations, therefore a small percentage of service workers are board members of THE MOST IMPORTANT corporations. However, the author concludes instead these workers constitute a small percentage of these boards, this is not the same thing, in fact they would be over represented. It's sort of like saying a small amount of B's are C's, therefore a small amount of C's are B's. This need not be true, it could be the case that there are a lot more B's than C's and that that the vast majority of C's are indeed B's.

Does this sound right to you guys?

[Blueprint Mithun]

After some careful review, I think I realize why (A) isn't correct. I erroneously concluded that the author was using faulty extrapolation however the author does no such thing, he just falsely equated two characteristics i.e., boardrooms of largest corporations = most important.. In order for there to be an extrapolation issue the author would have to say something like: A small percentage of service workers are board members of the largest corporations, therefore a small percentage of service workers are board members of THE MOST IMPORTANT corporations. However, the author concludes instead these workers constitute a small percentage of these boards, this is not the same thing, in fact they would be over represented. It's sort of like saying a small amount of B's are C's, therefore a small amount of C's are B's. This need not be true, it could be the case that there are a lot more B's than C's and that that the vast majority of C's are indeed B's.

Does this sound right to you guys?

I think that sounds right. The way I saw it, it doesn't matter if we're talking about 600 companies or 60,000. The error here is in equating the small percentage of people from the service professions who become board members with underrepresentation of service professionals in these boardrooms. We don't know the size of the relevant groups. Let's say there are 50 million service professionals - in that case, a small percentage of them is still a sizable amount of people. If they all become board members in these companies, then that might constitute a huge chunk of the boardroom members, making it unfair to assume that they are underrepresented.

[Barack Obama 2.0]

After some careful review, I think I realize why (A) isn't correct. I erroneously concluded that the author was using faulty extrapolation however the author does no such thing, he just falsely equated two characteristics i.e., boardrooms of largest corporations = most important.. In order for there to be an extrapolation issue the author would have to say something like: A small percentage of service workers are board members of the largest corporations, therefore a small percentage of service workers are board members of THE MOST IMPORTANT corporations. However, the author concludes instead these workers constitute a small percentage of these boards, this is not the same thing, in fact they would be over represented. It's sort of like saying a small amount of B's are C's, therefore a small amount of C's are B's. This need not be true, it could be the case that there are a lot more B's than C's and that that the vast majority of C's are indeed B's.

Does this sound right to you guys?

I think that sounds right. The way I saw it, it doesn't matter if we're talking about 600 companies or 60,000. The error here is in equating the small percentage of people from the service professions who become board members with underrepresentation of service professionals in these boardrooms. We don't know the size of the relevant groups. Let's say there are 50 million service professionals - in that case, a small percentage of them is still a sizable amount of people. If they all become board members in these companies, then that might constitute a huge chunk of the boardroom members, making it unfair to assume that they are underrepresented.

That's what I was thinking, thanks!