#16 - Automobile executive: Our critics say that the

[Dana D]

Hey Lawdream,

Answer choice (E) is describing circular reasoning. You are correct in that the wording of circular reasoning sometimes seems like a trap because it is so generic or broad sounding - I really recommend reviewing circular reasoning and the ways the test describes these answer choices so that you don't get tricked in the future.

That being said, answer choice (E) is wrong because this passage doesn't contain circular reasoning. You can tell because you identified a premise that is different than the conclusion, whereas with circular reasoning your premise and conclusion will be the exact same thing.

An example would be: I know I am right about this answer choice because I am right about this answer choice. My conclusion is that I am right about the answer and my premise/justification is because I am right.

In comparison, this stimulus has a conclusion (the critics are wrong to say the devices are dangerous) different than the premesis ('our' devices are easier to use and people who are going to use devices will do so anyway, so really our devices are safer).

Hope that helps!

[miriamson07]

Nothing conditional is happening in this stimulus, Law123, so an answer that describes a conditional flaw won't be correct.

Digging a little deeper into that answer, try answering this question: what condition is necessary to establish the conclusion? The conclusion is that the critics are wrong. What is it that the author thinks is 100% required if the critics are wrong? I don't see anything that the author thinks is necessary for that to be the case. There is no element of "if they are wrong, then this other thing must be true." They just think the fact that the devices are easier and safer than some alternatives is sufficient to prove that they are not dangerously distracting.

The argument is not based on treating something necessary as it it's sufficient; it's based on treating something that is safer (a relative claim) as if it is safe (an absolute claim). That means they are essentially ignoring the claim that the devices are dangerous, which is what makes answer B such a good answer.

Hello,

I was tempted to choose answer choice C because I thought that the "necessary assumption" (for the conclusion of the devices not being dangerously distracting) might be for the devices to be safer to use than typical communication devices.

To me, I think that it is common sense to say using a communication device needs to be safer than using the "typical" communication device (such as talking on the phone) while driving in order for that first communication device to be safe. But as you said in your explanation, there is no indication that the author believes this. The question I have after reading your explanation is: when looking for necessary assumptions, do we need to go by what the author would believe to be a necessary assumption, or by what we know to be a necessary assumption due to "common sense"?

Thank you!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Miriam!

We can actually rule out answer choice C because there isn't a necessary-sufficient conditional relationship that is set up in the stimulus. When you see the terms "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition" in an answer choice like this, for it to be the correct answer, it should always relate back to conditional relationship established within the stimulus, and here, we don't have one. A good way to test for this is to see whether or not there is an "if-then" relationship that would establish a conditional relationship in the stimulus, and if not, you can rule this out as your answer.

I hope this helps!

[miriamson07]

Hi Miriam!

We can actually rule out answer choice C because there isn't a necessary-sufficient conditional relationship that is set up in the stimulus. When you see the terms "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition" in an answer choice like this, for it to be the correct answer, it should always relate back to conditional relationship established within the stimulus, and here, we don't have one. A good way to test for this is to see whether or not there is an "if-then" relationship that would establish a conditional relationship in the stimulus, and if not, you can rule this out as your answer.

I hope this helps!

Hi Amber,

Thank you for your response!

So in order for there to be a necessary or sufficient condition, it needs to be explicitly stated in the stimulus. Does that mean that, something that would be necessary or sufficient by common sense, could never be considered as a necessary or sufficient conclusion if it is not explicitly stated to be so in the stimulus?

Thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi miriamson07!

It doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly stated, but it does need to be established by the stimulus. It's possible that some sort of conditional reasoning could be implied by a stimulus without being explicitly stated.

[miriamson07]

Hi miriamson07!

It doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly stated, but it does need to be established by the stimulus. It's possible that some sort of conditional reasoning could be implied by a stimulus without being explicitly stated.

Hi Luke,

Thank you for your response. Revisiting this question, I actually think I see a conditional relationship in this stimulus: the automobile executive is saying that because their devices are safer than devices that drivers use regardless, the critics are wrong.

But I do see why this might not be the main flaw. Rather, the main flaw happens when the automobile executive assumes that because their devices are easier to use, they are safer (easy does not equal safe).

Is this why answer chioce C is incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

That's not a conditional relationship, miriamson07. A conditional relationship is one in which one thing happening guarantees that another thing happens. If this, then that. The executive isn't saying that if the critics say this, then they are wrong. There is no "if" about it, because the critics did, in fact, say it! "Because" is not a conditional reasoning indicator; it just indicates a premise.

If the stimulus does not use conditional language, like "if" or "only" or "unless," etc., then don't force it into a conditional analysis. That's creating a problem where one doesn't exist. The real problem here is that the executive has not done anything to disprove that the devices are a dangerous distraction. All they did was say they are safer than some other alternative.