PT 52-1-10

    • January 5, 2016 at 11:49 am #1192
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hi Mr Kim, so I did get your book, and I’m glad I did. I love the way you emphasize flaws at the beginning of it, and I also felt like my strategy for LG and RC were not sufficient. Anyway, im actually using your book as I go through the review of PT 52. I’m having trouble seeing the flaw in this question. I actually just read your chapter on necessary assumptions, and it resonated with me on this question, the assumption felt hard to spot.

      I tried to keep my thought process very simple. I could not recognize any flaw so I just thought about the support right next to the conclusion.

      Without system mass evasion of charge will result—> when Mayor’s plan is first implemented, payment of charge will not be effectively enforced.

      Once I did that I still didn’t understand the flaw. Now that I’ve read your the passage about necessary assumptions, and not always having a great sense of where the flaw is, I probably would have focused more on the answer choices. In your opinion, was there a better way to think about the flaw on this question?

    • January 5, 2016 at 12:22 pm #1193
      dannypearlberg
      Participant

      I can’t speak for Mr. Kim of course, but here’s how I would approach this question.

      First, make sure you can identify the conclusion and the reasoning used to support the conclusion. Here’s how that would go on this question:

      Conclusion: When the mayor’s plan is first implemented, payment of the downtown driving charge will not be effectively enforced. [From what you wrote above it isn’t clear to me whether or not you identified the conclusion precisely- the key part here is that payment of the charge will not be effectively enforced when the mayor’s plan is first implemented]

      Reasoning: (i) Payment of the charge will be enforced using a highly sophisticated system, without which mass evasion of the charge will result. (ii) The highly sophisticated system won’t be ready until the end of next year.

      Now ask yourself: Is it possible that everything in the reasoning is true, and yet the conclusion is false? The answer will always be yes for these questions. Your job is to figure out how even if everything in the reasoning is true, the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow. It can be helpful to try to put yourself in the shoes of whoever is making the argument- why do they think that the conclusion must follow from the reasoning? On this question, even if it is true that the highly sophisticated system won’t be ready until the end of next year, since we don’t know when the mayor’s plan is going to be implemented, we don’t know whether or not the highly sophisticated system will be ready by the time the mayor’s plan is first implemented. Given the information in the stimulus, it is surely possible that the when the mayor’s plan is first implemented, payment of the charge will be effectively enforced- perhaps the mayor’s plan won’t be implemented until the end of next year!

      So why does the author of the argument think that the conclusion must follow from the reasoning? It must be because they are assuming that the mayor’s’ plan will be implemented before the end of next year, i.e. before the sophisticated system will be ready. Therein lies the flaw: The conclusion only follows from the reasoning if the mayor’s plan will be implemented before the end of next year, but the passage doesn’t tell us that the mayor’s plan will be implemented before the end of next year.

      The part about the mass evasion is telling us that the sophisticated system is necessary for effective enforcement of the plan, because without the sophisticated system, mass evasion of the charge will result.

      Hope that helps!

       

       

    • January 5, 2016 at 1:52 pm #1194
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks for your help,  and thanks for pointing that out about the conclusion Danny, it was just a writing mistake.

    • January 5, 2016 at 2:06 pm #1195
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      As far as your reasoning goes, I  understand the reasoning. However for some reason it’s hard for me to see the logic of that in a way that I can quickly recognize the flaw.  So I just kept it simple. I found the conclusion, and then I found the premise that was closest to it. The question just wasn’t clicking for some reason.

    • January 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm #1196
      dannypearlberg
      Participant

      I don’t think you need to worry right now about finding the flaw quickly- take your time and give your brain a chance to think it through 🙂

    • January 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm #1197
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I have! Lol I have read it, and I have tried to process it for a while (not only today)  it just won’t click, thanks for all your help though. I’m prob. thinking too hard, but that’s what I do. It’s a bad habit of mine lol.

    • January 5, 2016 at 3:09 pm #1198
      dannypearlberg
      Participant

      Oh ok gotcha, sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were saying that your difficulty lay in identifying the flaw quickly. Here, if you don’t mind I’ll try again 🙂

      We know when the sophisticated enforcement system will be ready- the end of next year. We don’t know when the mayor’s plan will be implemented. If the mayor’s plan is implemented before the end of next year, it will be implemented before the sophisticated enforcement system will be ready. Without the system, “mass evasion of the charge will result”. so if the mayor’s plan is implemented before the end of next year, there is good reason to think that the charge will not be effectively enforced. If, however, the mayor’s plan isn’t implemented until the end of next year, then the sophisticated enforcement system will be ready at that point, so why think that the charge will not be effectively enforced? So, the argument hinges on when the mayor’s plan is going to be implemented. But the stimulus doesn’t actually tell us when the mayor’s plan is going to be implemented.

    • January 5, 2016 at 3:56 pm #1199
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks again, I’m noticing that I tend to have trouble on assumption questions with conditional reasoning, questions like this.

    • January 8, 2016 at 11:20 am #1225
      Mike Kim
      Keymaster

      hey — just wanted to mention that I didn’t get involved because it seems you guys have it well covered, but let me know if you still want my thoughts and I’ll be happy to give them — mk

    • January 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm #1228
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks Mike, i think it basically comes down to the fact that i should have paid more attention to the sophisticated system will not be implemented until year part, the gap makes since more when I thought about it that way.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.