#21 - Sociologist: Traditional norms in our society prevent

[Eric Ockert]

Hi Sophia!

I think you are right. The correct answer really just links the second premise to the conclusion. However, notice that the first sentence sets things up a bit by using the word "sincerity." Even though they didn't use this word explicitly in the conclusion, when they refer to speaking "honestly" about unpleasant realities, they are referring to that "sincerity" present in answer choice (A).

Unfortunately, you don't always know precisely what the correct answer will link to in the stimulus in a Justify the Conclusion question. Generally, you are correct, you want to look for the logical gap in the argument and then target the answer that closes that gap. But, at the end of the day, all the correct answer must do is guarantee the conclusion. So while closing the gap may accomplish that, sometimes answers will just steer around the gap. For example:

Premise: All dogs are mammals.
Premise: All mammals are animals.

Conclusion: All dogs have mitochondria in their cells.

If you are truly gap spotting here, you would probably prephrase something like, "all animals have mitochondria in their cells." But what if an answer choice said "all mammals have mitochondria in their cells"? That still proves the conclusion. It doesn't close the gap in the argument, per se, but it steers around the gap and gets you to the conclusion regardless. And again, that's all the correct answer really has to do.

Hope that helps!

[Blueballoon5%]

Hello! I was wondering if someone could help me diagram the conditional statement in premise 2. The premise (in the stimulus) reads: "But a community whose members do not trust one another cannot succeed." The explanation in this forum explains that "Success → Trust (success requires trust)." I do not see how succeed is the sufficient condition for this sentence. Could someone help explain the sufficient/necessary indicators in this premise?

Thanks!!

[Adam Tyson]

Success Trust is the contrapositive of the claim in that sentence, Blueballoon. The sentence, as written, is telling us that without trust there can be no success, which you would diagram as Trust Success. Since the contrapositive of a claim is logically equivalent to the claim (that is, they mean the same thing no matter whether you diagram it the way it is presented or you diagram the contrapositive of that presentation), the diagram of Success Trust is saying the same thing.

[Blueballoon5%]

Thank you! That makes a lot of sense

[na02]

I feel very caught up with "requiring one to ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies." I thought that would be the necessary condition for sincerity, hence I diagrammed it as:
Traditional norms ~sincerity ~face unpleasant realities

Thus I kept diagramming "Face unpleasant realities Sincerity"

Would anyone explain how I might recognize that some "necessary indicators" might not be in fact necessary for future related questions?
Thank you,
NY

[Adam Tyson]

This was a close one, na02! But the indicators are there, in that "requiring" is telling you that something is sufficient and something else is necessary. Whatever is doing the requiring is sufficient, and what is required is what is necessary. So, in this first sentence, what is doing the requiring? It's "traditional norms" - that's what is requiring that we " ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies." Don;t let the fact that "prevent sincerity" is between the two conditions throw you off, but focus on the logical and semantic relationship.

Next, I would read "ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies" as being sufficient for a lack of sincerity rather than as a condition necessary for a lack of sincerity. In other words, IF we ignore reality and tell little lies, THEN we are not being sincere. The other way around makes less sense - IF we are insincere, THEN we are ignoring reality and telling lies. Maybe there are other ways of being insincere besides those?

Once you've got those in the right order, I think you can complete the chain and see the gap between a lack of sincerity and a lack of trust.

[glasann]

This is making me wonder if I can add the word "prevent" to my list of necessary indicators. Would it be correct to do so?

[Adam Tyson]

It would depend on the exact uasage, glasann, but a statement that "A prevents B" could perhaps be treated as conditional:

A B

(If A occurs, B cannot occur)

But I would hesitate to treat "prevents" as the absolute, 100% guarantee that we usually like to see in a true conditional statement. "Brushing your teeth prevents cavities" is not something I would treat as conditional, because in this case "prevent" could just mean "reduces." Unless the author said that it COMPLETELY prevents cavities, we could be overthinking and making mistakes if we handle that conditionally. So be careful!

[nosracgus]

Hi - it seems like you could easily dismiss B, C, & E because the language they use is not strong enough for a justify question. Is that a valid way to get rid of them?

Thanks!
C

[Adam Tyson]

In this case, yes, nosracgus! The argument here needs something stronger than just "likely" or "sometimes," so those answers should all look like losers on the first pass. But don't take this as a general rule for Justify questions, because sometimes you are only trying to prove that something is likely or that it happens sometimes!