#19 - Without information that could only have come from

[SammyWu11201]

I'm still having a really hard time wrapping my head around AC E. Can you please translate what AC E is saying, and what an argument that uses AC E would look like, and if AC E is actually describing a flaw? I'm just really lost the more that I think about it. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Happy to help, SammyWu11201! Answer E is describing a causal flaw ("contributed to" is your clue there), and it describes an argument where someone has argued that because one thing at least partially caused another thing, it must have been the sole cause. For example:

It appears that improperly maintained brakes played a role in the collision. Thus, had the brakes been properly maintained, the collision would not have occurred.

or

The minister's aide passed harmful information about the minister to the press, which was used to bring down the minister. Therefore, the minister's aide is solely responsible for the newspaper story that brought the minister down.

Both cases involve one cause contributing to an effect, and the author concludes that stated cause was enough, by itself, to be fully responsible for the effect. But in the first case, perhaps speed played a factor in the collision too, and distractions, and bald tires? In the second case, perhaps the leader of the opposition also passed on harmful information that was essential to bringing down the minister?

Parse those challenging answers into bite-sized bits to make them easier to manage. A phrase here, a phrase there, and it should all come together!

[nguyenpcindy]

hi! I understand why A is the correct answer when you break this stimulus down, but I am struggling with why E is still an incorrect answer. I am assuming my interpretation is wrong but want to check.

I chose E because I interpreted it as:

"treating evidence that a given action contributed to bringing about a certain effect as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect" --> meaning: the aide leaking information partially lead to the minister's resignation is the same as the aide leaking information being ENOUGH to lead to the minister's resignation.

I struggled between A and E because they appear to both be pointing to an alternate cause that led to the minister's resignation. To me, what E is describing is that the argument takes for granted that the aide leaking information is the main reason why the minister resigned although there could be a myriad of other things (e.g. unpopular opinion, financial or personal scandal, etc). Any correction would help, thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

We don't want to bring in other reasons the minister could have resigned, nguyenpcindy, because the stimulus tells us it was the newspaper article that forced the resignation. So the information given by the person from the meeting was sufficient to bring down the minister. The error in reasoning is that the information didn't have to come from the minister's aide. It could have come from the opposition leader who also was at the secret meeting.

Hope that helps!

[emilyjmyer]

Hi!

So in this stimulus there is conditional reasoning present in the premises. And the answer choice (E) that used conditional reasoning dealt with the conditional reasoning in the premises and not the conclusion. Therefore, it is wrong because we cannot question the premises. Is that correct?

Does this question show us that sometimes there may be conditional reasoning present but the flaw may be in a different type of reasoning in the argument?

Thanks!

[katehos]

Hi emilyjymer!

Yes and yes! Since it is a premise of the argument that the story forced the finance minister to resign, we can't question that. The author of the stimulus clearly attributes the resignation to the story, so there's no issue of a partial contributor to a problem being confused as being able to entirely cause the problem on its own.

This question is a great example of conditional reasoning being used as a red herring of sorts. The flaw itself here has nothing to do with conditional reasoning, but rather it is based on the fact that the same line of reasoning could easily lead one to conclude that the leader of the opposition party leaked the information! Good job!

Hope this helps
Kate