Inventor: All highly successful entrepreneurs have as their main desire the wish to leave a mark on the world. Highly successful entrepreneurs are unique in that whenever they see a solution to a problem, they implement that idea. All other people see solutions to problems but are too interested in leisure time or job security to always have the motivation to implement their ideas.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

People who implement the solutions that they see whenever they detect them have as their main desire the wish to leave a mark on the world.

A
Most people do not want to leave a mark on the world because trying to do so would reduce their leisure time or job security.

Could be false. The stimulus does not discuss quantities, so we cannot infer what “most people” don’t want.

B
All people who invariably implement their solutions to problems have at least some interest in leisure time or job security.

Could be false. We don’t know anything about how interested in leisure time or job security the invariable problem solvers are.

C
The main desire of all people who implement solutions whenever they detect them is to leave a mark on the world.

Must be true. As shown below, implementing solutions whenever one detects them is a sufficient condition for having one’s main desire be to leave a mark on the world.

D
Generally, highly successful entrepreneurs’ interests in leisure time or job security are not strong enough to have a negative impact on their ability to see solutions to problems.

Could be false. From the stimulus, we just know that when highly successful entrepreneurs see solutions, they implement the solutions. We don’t know anything about how often they see solutions, or what factors influence their ability to see solutions.

E
All people whose main desire is to implement their solutions to problems leave a mark on the world.

Could be false. The stimulus discusses people who implement their solutions, not people whose main desire is to implement their solutions. Similarly, the stimulus discusses those whose main desire is to leave a mark on the world, not those who actually leave a mark.


28 comments

If a piece of legislation is the result of negotiation and compromise between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups. So, we can see that the recently enacted trade agreement represents a series of compromises among the various interest groups that are concerned with it, because all of those groups are clearly unhappy with it.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the trade agreement is the result of compromises between competing interest groups. He supports this with the following premises:
(1) If legislation is the result of negotiation and compromises between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups.
(2) All the groups involved in the trade agreement are unhappy— or unsatisfied— with it.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author treats “compromises” as necessary for “unsatisfied,” but according to his premises, “compromises” is part of the sufficient condition.

In other words, it’s possible that the trade agreement was not the result of compromises, even though all of the interest groups were unsatisfied with it.

A
It draws a conclusion that is merely a disguised restatement of one of its premises.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The author doesn’t make this mistake. His premises may not support his conclusion well, but they are distinct from his conclusion.
B
It concludes that a condition is necessary for a certain result merely from the claim that the condition leads to that result.
The author concludes that “compromises” is necessary for “unsatisfied,” merely from the claim that compromises lead to interest groups being unsatisfied. But it’s possible that the trade agreement is not the result of compromises, even though its interest groups are unsatisfied.
C
It relies on understanding a key term in a quite different way in the conclusion from the way that term is understood in the premises.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. The author doesn't use the same key term in different ways. He does assume that “unhappy” interest groups are also “unsatisfied,” but this is reasonable in the context of his argument.
D
It takes for granted that no piece of legislation can ever satisfy all competing interest groups.
The author doesn’t assume that no legislation can satisfy all interest groups. Instead, he mistakenly assumes that if a piece of legislation does not satisfy all interest groups, then it must be the result of compromises.
E
It bases a conclusion about a particular case on a general principle that concerns a different kind of case.
The author doesn't make this mistake. He bases a conclusion about a piece of legislation on premises that are also about a piece of legislation.

13 comments

Editorial: Teenagers tend to wake up around 8:00 A.M., the time when they stop releasing melatonin, and are sleepy if made to wake up earlier. Since sleepiness can impair driving ability, car accidents involving teenagers driving to school could be reduced if the school day began later than 8:00 A.M. Indeed, when the schedule for Granville’s high school was changed so that school began at 8:30 A.M. rather than earlier, the overall number of car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville declined.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that car accidents involving teenagers driving to school could be reduced if the school day began later than 8am. This is based on the fact that teenagers tend to be sleepy if they wake up before 8am, and sleepiness can impair driving ability. In addition, when the Granville school’s schedule was changed to begin at 8:30am, the number of car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville declined.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Granville’s schedule change was the cause of the decrease in car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville. The author also assumes that there wouldn’t be any effects of a later school start that might tend to increase the number of car accidents involving teenagers.

A
Teenagers start releasing melatonin later at night and stop releasing it later in the morning than do young children.
A comparison to young children has no clear impact. The argument concerns teenagers and is based on statistics concerning Granville’s high school. What children have to do with this statistic or the argument is unclear.
B
Sleepy teenagers are tardy for school more frequently than teenagers who are well rested when the school day begins.
Tardiness has no clear impact on whether starting the school day later can reduce the number of accidents involving teenagers. Whether teens become more or less tardy after the change doesn’t affect accident rates.
C
Teenagers who work at jobs during the day spend more time driving than do teenagers who attend high school during the day.
The argument concerns accidents involving teenagers driving to school and whether this can be reduced by having school start later. Some teenagers might not go to school in the day; they wouldn’t be affected by the later school start.
D
Many of the car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville occurred in the evening rather than in the morning.
We still know that after the Granville school’s start time was changed, the overall number of car accidents involving teenage drivers declined. Maybe some of the decrease relates to the evening; the rest could relate to the morning.
E
Car accidents involving teenage drivers rose in the region surrounding Granville during the time they declined in Granville.
This strengthens by eliminating the possibility that the decreased accidents in Granville were simply the result of a region-wide trend unconnected to the change in school start time.

90 comments