Glen: An emphasis on law’s purely procedural side produces a concern with personal rights that leads to the individual’s indifference to society’s welfare. Law’s primary role should be to create virtuous citizens.

Sara: But such a role would encourage government to decide which modes of life are truly virtuous; that would be more dangerous than government’s being overprotective of individuals’ rights.

Speaker 1 Summary
Glen argues that the primary role of the law should be to create virtuous citizens. Why? Because focusing on the procedural aspect of law puts too much emphasis on individuals rather than overall societal welfare. (Glen appears to assume that the options are either a procedural focus or a focus on creating virtuous citizens.)

Speaker 2 Summary
Sarah implies the conclusion that the law’s primary focus should not be on creating virtuous citizens. Why? Because that focus would encourage the government to decide what counts as “virtuous,” which Sarah says is a worse alternative than caring too much about individuals. In other words, Sarah thinks that Glen’s conclusion would lead to a worse outcome than the issue Glen wants to solve.

Objective
We need to find a disagreement. Glen and Sarah disagree about whether the law’s primary role should be creating virtuous citizens.

A
citizens can be assumed to be capable of making good choices without governmental interference
Neither speaker talks about whether people are capable of making good choices without governmental interference. The discussion never touches on how the presence or absence of governmental interference changes people’s behavior.
B
virtuousness on the part of citizens is more important than the protection of citizens’ rights
Neither speaker considers the importance of virtuousness on the part of citizens. How citizens behave is actually pretty irrelevant to this discussion, which is about what role the law should prioritize.
C
there is an inherent danger in allowing government to decide what constitutes virtuous behavior among citizens
Sarah would likely agree with this, but Glen never expresses an opinion. Glen only mentions the dangers of government focusing on individual rights, and doesn’t talk about the possible dangers of government focusing on virtue.
D
an emphasis on law’s purely procedural side results in government’s being overprotective of citizens’ rights
Glen agrees with this, but Sarah doesn’t disagree. Sarah’s argument is that the alternative (government being too concerned with virtue) is worse. She never actually contradicts Glen’s claim about overprotecting individual rights.
E
the cultivation of virtue among citizens should be the primary role of law
This is the conclusion of Glen’s argument, meaning Glen agrees. Sarah’s argument, on the other hand, supports the unstated conclusion that this is not the case and that the law should focus on other roles. This is the disagreement.

22 comments

None of the students taking literature are taking physics, but several of the students taking physics are taking art. In addition, none of the students taking rhetoric are taking physics.

Summary
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences
Some art students aren’t taking literature.

Some art students aren’t taking rhetoric.

Some students take neither rhetoric nor literature.

A
There are students who are taking art but not literature.
This must be true. As shown below, there must be some overlap between students taking art and students not taking literature.
B
None of the students taking literature are taking art.
This could be false. We know that some art students aren’t taking literature, but we can’t say that none of the literature students are taking art.
C
There are students who are taking rhetoric but not literature.
This could be false. We know that there are some students who take neither rhetoric nor literature; it could be the case that some students take one but not the other.
D
None of the students taking rhetoric are taking literature.
This could be false. We know that there are some students who take neither rhetoric nor literature; we just can’t say that no students who take rhetoric take literature.
E
There are students who are taking both art and literature.
This could be false. We know that some art students aren’t taking literature, but it could be the case that some students do take art and literature.

12 comments

This is a very hard question.

Not because of the argument, which is pretty straight forward. Rather, it's because of a very enticing trap wrong answer choice.

This is a Necessary Assumption question. We know this because the question stem states that the right answer choice "must" be assumed. It's needed. It's necessary.

If you don't know the difference between Necessary Assumptions v. Sufficient Assumptions, review that lesson.

The argument is saying that on a talk show, therapy is expected to be entertaining. I'm wondering, okay, it's expected to be entertaining but that doesn't mean the therapist will make it entertaining. Assuming otherwise is just that, an assumption.

We read on to find out that entertaining --almost always--> not high quality help. Now, this is just begging us to make the assumption that high quality help is to be valued over entertainment. And okay, you can assume that if you want. Just be aware you're making that assumption.

Otherwise, the conclusion that follows - therefore therapists shouldn't do therapy on talk shows - will just seem so natural and obvious to you that you're thinking, well okay then, I think this is a fantastic argument. That's not good because you needed to have seen and felt the gap, the assumption made.

Piecing the two premises together, we only get to say that therapists doing therapy on talk shows are expected to do something that's likely going to result in less-than-high-quality-therapy.

So what are the chances that they will provide less-than-high-quality-therapy? Well that depends on the chances that they do what the talk show expects them to do. We can change this number around later, but let's just say they're 70% likely to do what they're expected to do, so they're 70% likely to provide less-than-high-quality-therapy.

Does it follow from that statement that therapists should not do therapy on talk shows?

Only if we draw a bridge between those two statements.

So, hey, look at (C). It draw an awesome bridge. It says that anytime there is even a chance that the therapy might be less than high quality, it should not be provided. Think about what that means. It's setting a very low trigger. What if there is only a 2% chance of us providing less than high quality therapy? (C) would trigger and it would say "Sorry, a chance exists, so no go." 

Now, for our case, the chances that on our therapist will provide less-than-high-quality-therapy on the talk show is a whopping 70%. Of course (C), with its low trigger, triggers and helps our argument a lot. 

But we call that a sufficient assumption, not a necessary assumption. Remember your first lesson in Necessary Assumptions? You can see this just by tossing (C) out. You can deny that the trigger has to be that low. You can raise the trigger by, say, 10% and it would NOT wreck our argument. In fact, that's still low enough to trigger for our premises.

So you see that (C) really is not necessary.

(E) sets the trigger just right. It increases the trigger from (C) to just around 70%. The trigger condition is set to match the condition laid out in the two premises.


67 comments

Tania: A good art critic is not fair in the ordinary sense; it is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a truly unbiased opinion. Since art is a passion, good criticism of art cannot be separated from emotion.

Monique: Art is not simply a passion. The best art critics passionately engage with the artwork, but render their criticism only after shedding all of their biases and consulting general principles of aesthetics.

Speaker 1 Summary
Tania concludes that a good art critic isn’t fair. This is because an unbiased (fair) critic needs to be uninterested in art, but good art criticism requires emotion (which Tania is implying requires interest in the art).

Speaker 2 Summary
Monique asserts that the best art critics shed all their biases before delivering their criticism. She acknowledges that art is a passion, but says it’s not only a passion.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree over whether good art critics can be unbiased. Tania thinks they can’t. Monique thinks that can.

A
art is not simply a passion
Tania doesn’t have an opinion. She says that art is a passion. But we don’t know whether she thinks it’s more than just a passion.
B
good art criticism is sometimes unbiased
This is a point of disagreement. Tania thinks this is not possible, because good art criticism requires emotion, which she implies involves being interested in art. Monique thinks a good art critic can be unbiased.
C
art critics should not feel emotion toward artworks
Neither speaker has an opinion. Although both recognize that good art critics do feel passion toward art, we don’t know whether they think critics should or should not feel that passion.
D
fairness generally requires minimizing the influence of bias
Neither speaker has an opinion. Although Tania discusses fairness in the context of art criticism, we don’t know what she thinks about fairness in other contexts. Similarly, Monique discusses unbiased criticism, but we don’t know what she thinks about fairness generally.
E
the passionate engagement of the art critic with the artwork is the most important aspect of art criticism
Neither speaker has an opinion. We don’t know what either person thinks is the “most” important part of art criticism.

35 comments