Because justifying a conclusion is such a specific task, the logic behind the question must
allow for airtight provability.
Stimuli that contain numbers or percentages in the stimulus also allow for the exactitude these
questions require.
Because logically proving an argument is a difficult task that requires 100%
certainty, only certain types of argumentation tend to appear in Justify stimuli. In
fact, most Justify stimuli either use Conditional Reasoning or contain numbers
and percentages. Why? Because both forms of reasoning allow for certainty
when drawing a conclusion. Consider the following example, which contains
conditional reasoning:
Premise: A
Premise: A------------> B
Conclusion: B
This example can quickly be turned into a Justify the Conclusion question by
removing either premise. For example:
Premise: A occurs.
Conclusion: B occurs.
Question: What statement can be added to the argument above to
conclude that B must follow?
Answer: A-------------> B
Or, the other premise could be removed:
Premise: A-------------> B
Conclusion: B occurs.
Question: What statement can be added to the argument above to
conclude that B must follow?
Answer: A occurs.
When examined abstractly, many Justify the Conclusion questions work in just
this way. Please take a moment to consider the following question:
1. Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating
Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years. We
can conclude from this that Maria trained hard.
The conclusion follows logically if which one of the
following is assumed?
(A) Sue did not train as hard as Maria trained.
(B) If Maria trained hard, she would win the
sailboat race.
(C) Maria could beat a four-time winner only if she
trained hard.
(D) If Sue trained hard, she would win the sailboat
race.
(E) Sue is usually a faster sailboat racer than Maria.
The structure of the argument is:
Strengthen questions with the phrase “most justifies” in the question stem can largely be
treated like Justify questions, but you must understand there is a window that allows for an
answer that does not perfectly justify the conclusion.
Premise: Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating Sue, the
winner in each of the four previous years.
Conclusion: We can conclude from this that Maria trained hard.
A quick glance at the argument reveals a gap between the premise and
conclusion—winning does not necessarily guarantee that Maria trained hard.
This is the connection we will need to focus on when considering the answer
choices. To further abstract this relationship, we can portray the argument as
follows:
Premise: Maria won (which we could also call “A”)
Conclusion: Maria trained hard (which we could also call “B”)
The answer that will justify this relationship is:
A-------------> B
Which is the same as:
Maria won-------------> Maria trained hard
A quick glance at the answer choices reveals that answer choice (C) matches
this relationship (remember, “only if” introduces a necessary condition). Thus,
the structure in this problem matches the first of the two examples discussed on
the previous page. A large number of Justify questions follow this same model,
and you should be prepared to encounter this form.
Answer choice (A): This answer does not justify the conclusion that Maria
trained hard. The answer does justify the conclusion that Maria trained, but
because this is not the same as the conclusion of the argument, this answer is
incorrect.
Another way of attacking this answer is to use the Justify Formula. Consider the
combination of the following two elements:
Premise: Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating
Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years.
Answer choice (A): Sue did not train as hard as Maria trained.
Does the combination of the two elements lead to the conclusion that Maria
trained hard? No, and therefore the answer is wrong.
Answer choice (B): This is a Mistaken Reversal of what is needed (and
therefore the Mistaken Reversal of answer choice (C)). Adding this answer to
the premise does not result in the conclusion. In Justify questions featuring
conditionality, always be ready to identify and avoid Mistaken Reversals and
Mistaken Negations of the relationship needed to justify the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. Adding this answer to the
premise automatically yields the conclusion.
Answer choice (D): Because we do not know anything about Sue except that
she lost, this answer does not help prove the conclusion.
If you are having difficulty understanding why this answer is incorrect, use the
Justify Formula. Consider the combination of the following two elements:
Premise: Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating
Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years.
Answer choice (C): If Sue trained hard, she would win the sailboat race.
The combination of the two creates the contrapositive conclusion that Sue did
not train hard. But, the fact that Sue did not train hard does not tell us anything
about whether Maria trained hard.
Answer choice (E): Because this answer addresses only the relative speed of the
two racers, it fails to help prove that Maria trained hard.
allow for airtight provability.
Stimuli that contain numbers or percentages in the stimulus also allow for the exactitude these
questions require.
Because logically proving an argument is a difficult task that requires 100%
certainty, only certain types of argumentation tend to appear in Justify stimuli. In
fact, most Justify stimuli either use Conditional Reasoning or contain numbers
and percentages. Why? Because both forms of reasoning allow for certainty
when drawing a conclusion. Consider the following example, which contains
conditional reasoning:
Premise: A
Premise: A------------> B
Conclusion: B
This example can quickly be turned into a Justify the Conclusion question by
removing either premise. For example:
Premise: A occurs.
Conclusion: B occurs.
Question: What statement can be added to the argument above to
conclude that B must follow?
Answer: A-------------> B
Or, the other premise could be removed:
Premise: A-------------> B
Conclusion: B occurs.
Question: What statement can be added to the argument above to
conclude that B must follow?
Answer: A occurs.
When examined abstractly, many Justify the Conclusion questions work in just
this way. Please take a moment to consider the following question:
1. Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating
Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years. We
can conclude from this that Maria trained hard.
The conclusion follows logically if which one of the
following is assumed?
(A) Sue did not train as hard as Maria trained.
(B) If Maria trained hard, she would win the
sailboat race.
(C) Maria could beat a four-time winner only if she
trained hard.
(D) If Sue trained hard, she would win the sailboat
race.
(E) Sue is usually a faster sailboat racer than Maria.
The structure of the argument is:
Strengthen questions with the phrase “most justifies” in the question stem can largely be
treated like Justify questions, but you must understand there is a window that allows for an
answer that does not perfectly justify the conclusion.
Premise: Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating Sue, the
winner in each of the four previous years.
Conclusion: We can conclude from this that Maria trained hard.
A quick glance at the argument reveals a gap between the premise and
conclusion—winning does not necessarily guarantee that Maria trained hard.
This is the connection we will need to focus on when considering the answer
choices. To further abstract this relationship, we can portray the argument as
follows:
Premise: Maria won (which we could also call “A”)
Conclusion: Maria trained hard (which we could also call “B”)
The answer that will justify this relationship is:
A-------------> B
Which is the same as:
Maria won-------------> Maria trained hard
A quick glance at the answer choices reveals that answer choice (C) matches
this relationship (remember, “only if” introduces a necessary condition). Thus,
the structure in this problem matches the first of the two examples discussed on
the previous page. A large number of Justify questions follow this same model,
and you should be prepared to encounter this form.
Answer choice (A): This answer does not justify the conclusion that Maria
trained hard. The answer does justify the conclusion that Maria trained, but
because this is not the same as the conclusion of the argument, this answer is
incorrect.
Another way of attacking this answer is to use the Justify Formula. Consider the
combination of the following two elements:
Premise: Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating
Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years.
Answer choice (A): Sue did not train as hard as Maria trained.
Does the combination of the two elements lead to the conclusion that Maria
trained hard? No, and therefore the answer is wrong.
Answer choice (B): This is a Mistaken Reversal of what is needed (and
therefore the Mistaken Reversal of answer choice (C)). Adding this answer to
the premise does not result in the conclusion. In Justify questions featuring
conditionality, always be ready to identify and avoid Mistaken Reversals and
Mistaken Negations of the relationship needed to justify the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. Adding this answer to the
premise automatically yields the conclusion.
Answer choice (D): Because we do not know anything about Sue except that
she lost, this answer does not help prove the conclusion.
If you are having difficulty understanding why this answer is incorrect, use the
Justify Formula. Consider the combination of the following two elements:
Premise: Maria won this year’s local sailboat race by beating
Sue, the winner in each of the four previous years.
Answer choice (C): If Sue trained hard, she would win the sailboat race.
The combination of the two creates the contrapositive conclusion that Sue did
not train hard. But, the fact that Sue did not train hard does not tell us anything
about whether Maria trained hard.
Answer choice (E): Because this answer addresses only the relative speed of the
two racers, it fails to help prove that Maria trained hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment