Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers, and only those who understand the archite...
ShirnelMarch 13, 2020
Can you explain this to me?
I was able to write down the premises correctly and recognized that the conclusion was a reversal; however, I didn't know how to explain this in the answer choices.
I know that Mehran used the example of carrots and vegetables in the video. Can you explain this to me and juxtapose this e.g., that way I get it! (And that is moving forward I want this to stick in my head).
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Unfortunately, I can’t see the video that you’re talking about. However, I can still try to help you through this one!
Let’s start by breaking down the stimulus. We see a pretty neat conditional chain happening here.
Premise 1: Understand the architecture of personal computers —> computer scientist Premise 2: Appreciate advances in technology —> understand the architecture of personal computers
For the sake of clarity, let’s look at those two premises in the reverse order. When we do that, the conditional chain is more obvious.
Premise 2: Appreciate advances in technology (A) —> understand the architecture of personal computers (B) Premise 1: Understand the architecture of personal computers (B) —> computer scientist (C)
Logically, what would follow from the above is: Appreciate advances in technology (A) —> computer scientist (C)
However, the conclusion we are given says this: Computer scientist (C) —> appreciate advances in technology (A)
As you can see (with the As, Bs and Cs for added clarity) the terms in the given conclusion are reversed, and therefore, the conclusion does not necessarily follow.
That is because based on the premises, all we know to be logically valid is that if you appreciate advances in technology, then you necessarily are a computer scientist. That does not mean the same thing as saying if you are a computer scientist, you necessarily appreciate advances in technology. If you are a computer scientist, you very well might appreciate advances in technology...but you also might not. There could be more than one sufficient condition to being a computer scientist, which is why that reversal is dangerous. For example, I could say “If you were born in the year 2050, you are a computer scientist.†That would mean everyone born in the year 2050 is a computer scientist. Maybe the reason everyone born in that year is a computer scientist is because it’s a post-apocalyptic world where martial law decides what people will be when they grow up, and for 2050 babies, that means computer scientists. In that world 2050 babies will be computer scientists possibly against their will, but they might not appreciate advances in technology at all since the government decided what they would do with their lives, not them!
Now, let’s take a look at the answer choices and see what we find.
A) That’s not a flaw in the argument—the argument actually does contain an implied relationship between those two characteristics. That implied relationship is the one we found above, appreciate advances in technology (A) —> computer scientist (C).
B) Bingo! Hopefully this one makes more sense now that we’ve used the 2050 babies forced into computer science by martial law example. That’s an example of some computer scientists that may not appreciate the advances in technology made. Because of the reversal in conditional logic, the argument is ignoring that some computer scientists many not have an appreciation for advances in technology.
C) The argument doesn’t ignore this fact. The argument simply doesn’t address any of those other things. It is not saying the only thing that computer scientists appreciate is advances in technology...those scientists might also appreciate ice cream—the argument isn’t wrongfully ignoring that possibility, it’s just not addressed!
D) The premises are not stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of drawing a logical conclusion. After all, we drew a logical conclusion from them pretty easily! Appreciate advances in technology (A) —> computer scientist (C).
E) The premises are not assuming that everyone in the world understands the architecture of personal computers. They’re just saying that all people who appreciate advances in technology (A) —> understand the architecture of personal computers (B) (Premise 2). So, not this isn’t happening here and isn’t the flaw.
Hope this helps Shirnel! Feel free to follow up if you have anymore questions.
