I know this is a two part question. I got number 13 right fairly quickly but i don't understand how A is right.
I only got A right because i eliminated everything else but i just don't know what A is saying and how its weakening.
B. "there are members of the philosophy department who".... who the hell cares about the philosophy department?
C. "Computer science professors who hold PhD's but who are not members of the staff have applied." ok who cares if you applied? That doesn't weaken. That just says who applied.
D. Several members of the board of trustees do not have PhD's.. again, this does absolutely nothing. The trustees having doctorate degrees aren't a necessary condition for anything and make no difference.
E. Some members of the computer science department at this university are not respected by academics in other departments. Again... this. does. not. do. anything. Even if that was true that doesn't mean that the one member of the computer science department is the one that will be chosen to be dean of computing.
So i eliminated all of those and came away with A. but how does A weaken the support? I don't get it at all. If i had to guess, it would say that some members of the pool of applicants in the Computer science department don't have all the pre requisites stated to be the dean of computing.. <--- would that be enough to weaken? Is that what the answer choice is saying.
Thanks a lot.
#14- The dean of computing must be respected by the academic
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Kudos on using the process of elimination to get to the right answer!
Here's how answer choice (A) weakens the argument.
The argument says that the dean of computing must: (1) hold a doctoral degree (2) really know about computers and (3) be a member of the university staff. The speaker then goes on to conclude that the dean of computer must be a professor from within the university's computer sciences department.
There are two big things wrong with this conclusion.
First, the three criteria set out for the dean of computing require only that someone "really knows computers," not that they hold the position as a professor in the computing department. For example, a professor in the engineering department could "really know computers" and also satisfy the criteria for having a doctorate and being on staff. The conclusion's assumption that the future dean has to work in the computing department is just not supported by the three criteria.
Second, the criteria do not specifically indicate that the future dean be a professor at all. It's possible that a teaching assistant, adjunct professor, head of IT or other staff member at the university has a doctoral degree, knows computers, and is on staff. The conclusion's assumption that the future dean has to be a professor also does not follow from the three hiring criteria.
Answer choice (A) weakens the conclusion by showing that there are people who meet the three criteria but who are not professors in the computing department. This demonstrates that the argument's conclusion is too narrow to be correct.
Hope this helps!
this was definitely helpful and makes more sense. Initially reading the stimulus i saw that there was a leap in logic but i didn't think about it enough to see the hole that was made. Thanks a lot!
3 posts • Page 1 of 1