Q14 - During recessions unemployment

[shaynfernandez]

I am having a little bit of trouble with this necessary assumption question. The passage is easy to follow but I think I am having trouble finding what is the core.

1. (premise) when recession unemployment rises.
2. Thus, while in recession air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases.
3. (premise) Since less people commute in cars to jobs and
4. So cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

I am having trouble identifying if 2 or 4 is the conclusion and/or if either is a sub-conclusion.


I can see the argument in 1:

1. The implicit causality between commuting in cars to work resulting in a decrease in automobile exhaust.

With 2 different necessary assumptions.

1. The given effect occurs, we need to protect the assumption that less commuting to work results in less pollution from cars. Which answer choice D provides.

2. To protect the cause that it is in fact less commuting to work that causes the given effect of less pollution from car exhaust. Answer choice A provides us with this by eliminating the possibility of people who have never been employed driving less, causing less car exhaust pollution.

I originally chose answer choice D, but upon review saw the implicit causality and A also seemed necessary.

I know the negation rule is very telling and when A is negated it hurts but doesnt destroy the argument while D does destroy the argument. But I just wanted see if there is another bases other than negation the see why A is not necessary.

The other choices are tempting but a little but easier to eliminate:

B. is sufficient but it's not necessary for the argument.
C. Sounds like a correct sufficient assumption answer in that it looks to defend against other possibilities but this one says MOST which isn't necessary for us to draw the conclusion.
E. may be sufficient if anything but it requires another assumption "that those who lost their jobs didn't have them replaced" and is therefore incorrect.

[ohthatpatrick]

That was a cool breakdown of your thought process. Let me see if I can reinforce a few things and clarify a few things.

You were right in thinking that the presence of a "Thus" and a "so" suggests that there is a main conclusion and a subsidiary conclusion.

To figure out which is which, try the Therefore test (to identify which idea supports the other).

Does 2 support 4?
During a recession, the air pollution from car exhaust decreases, THEREFORE cars emitting pollutants are used less.

Or does 4 support 2?
Cars emitting pollutants are used less, THEREFORE, the air pollution from car exhaust decreases.

This 2nd ordering makes more logical sense, so 2 is the Main Conc and 4 is the subsidiary.

The argument would break down like this:

During a recession, the air pollution from car exhaust decreases.
Why?
Because cars emitting pollutants are used less.
Why?
Because during a recession unemployment rises and so fewer people are commuting in cars to jobs.

If we want to play devil's advocate to this Main Conclusion, we need to think, "How can I make the counterargument that car exhaust pollution does NOT decrease?"

We have to accept that fewer people are commuting to work in cars, but is there any other way that they could be contributing just as much (or more) exhaust as before?

Maybe they now need to drive to job interviews, or the welfare office, or they just drive with vacant stares wondering what became of the beautiful life they once knew.

Before we dive into the answers, let me remind you what a Sufficient Assumption means. You seemed to be using the concept to mean "something that's stronger than what we MUST assume". But a Sufficient Assumption is more than just that; to qualify as a Sufficient Assumption, the idea must logically GUARANTEE the truth of the conclusion.

It will normally sound boring, mathematical, mechanical.

Here, a Sufficient Assumption would be:
"Any time fewer people are commuting to work, there is less air pollution from car exhaust."

It would have to take something we know to be true from the Premises and link it to the wording of the Conclusion, GUARANTEEING that the conclusion is true.

So none of these trap answers are sufficient assumptions. (None of them prove 'there is less air pollution from car exhaust').

====answer choices===

A) "People who have never been employed" seems out of scope. The author was talking about "People who WERE employed" ... he thought that the reduction in air pollution was coming from people who WERE employed but now are not. His argument doesn't address people who never were employed.

If we negate (A), we get "people who have never been employed drive LESS frequently during a recession". Does that hurt the argument?

No. The author is trying to prove that there's less car exhaust during a recession. When we negate (A), it STRENGTHENS the idea that there is less car exhaust during a recession.

B) "most", as you awesomely indicated, is a dead giveaway on Necessary Assumption answers. Out of all the Nec. Assump. answers that have ever included the word "most", perhaps 1% have been right. It doesn't matter to the author's argument whether 51% or 49% of air pollution comes from car exhaust. Whatever the percentage of total air pollution car exhaust represents, the author is arguing that it gets lower during a recession.

C) Again, "most" is a huge red flag that ultimately kills this answer. It's not relevant whether 51% or 49% of employed people use public transportation or not.

Interestingly, though, it IS relevant whether 100% or less than 100% of ppl use public transportation.

The author is arguing that people who lose their jobs will no longer be commuting in their cars, thereby decreasing exhaust.

Well, if EVERYONE was taking public transportation, then there wouldn't be any cars being taken off the road.

So if (C) said "at least some people who are employed do not use public transportation to commute to their jobs", it would be a necessary assumption.

D) When we negate this answer, it says that "decreased use of cars due to not having a job IS offset by increased use of cars for other reasons". Boom goes the dynamite -- this kills the argument.

E) The author doesn't have to worry about whether car drivers are more likely to lose their jobs than non-car drivers are. He just needs there to be at least some car drivers who lose their job and end up driving less as a result.

Hope this helps.

[shaynfernandez]

Thanks Patrick your explanation really does help!

Did I miss understand causality to be involved in this question in "due to automobile exhaust" as a cause and effect relationship. While its actually just acting as a subject? In the sense that it's just describing the type of pollution (car exhaust pollution) and its not concluding that pollution has decreased BECAUSE of the cars.
I think that was my biggest confusion, reading to much into the words "due to".

[wj097]

A) "People who have never been employed" seems out of scope. The author was talking about "People who WERE employed" ... he thought that the reduction in air pollution was coming from people who WERE employed but now are not. His argument doesn't address people who never were employed.

If we negate (A), we get "people who have never been employed drive LESS frequently during a recession". Does that hurt the argument?

No. The author is trying to prove that there's less car exhaust during a recession. When we negate (A), it STRENGTHENS the idea that there is less car exhaust during a recession.

Hey Patrick, while I agree the part where you negate (A) and it does not hurt but rather strengthens, I think you shouldn't consider the issue regarding people who have never been employed irrelevant. While it is true that the scope of the premise is about employee who get unemployed, the conclusion is about air pollution due to automobile exhaust in general, thus there's an assumption that exhaust from other source does not outweigh that of the unemployed during recession.

Thx

[WaltGrace1983]

Hey Patrick, while I agree the part where you negate (A) and it does not hurt but rather strengthens, I think you shouldn't consider the issue regarding people who have never been employed irrelevant. While it is true that the scope of the premise is about employee who get unemployed, the conclusion is about air pollution due to automobile exhaust in general, thus there's an assumption that exhaust from other source does not outweigh that of the unemployed during recession.

Thx

A geek should (please) correct me if I am wrong here but I think one thing that is important to understand on Assumption family questions is the idea of the "character." I had a conversation with Brian Birdwell in one of his Zen classes about this idea. We must understand that we don't care about weakening/strengthening the conclusion per se, we care about the link. Thus, we care about how the premise relates to the conclusion, instead of just caring about weakening the conclusion with the negation test.

Fewer people commute in cars to jobs
+
Cars emitting pollutants are getting used less
→
Air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases

We must have a solid understanding of the characters: who is being talked about here? What is the conclusion based upon? The conclusion is based upon a discussion of a select group of people: those people who were commuting to jobs. The argument is saying, "these cars are being used less because these people aren't going to their jobs anymore!" So when we are looking for answers, we want to isolate our thinking to only those people that were commuting to jobs.

We cannot validate the conclusion in any way with (A). Why? Because the conclusion is not based on these people without jobs. The conclusion is all about linking the people with jobs to the idea that cars are being used less and, ultimately, that air pollution is being decreased.

Another really good example of this idea is PT31-S3-17. Notice the word "that" in the premise.

Again though, if my understanding is off, let me know so I can correct it!

[maryadkins]

Walt, you're generally correct, so bravo. But be careful here. This critique of Patrick's singular point about (A) is actually correct (and I'm sure Patrick would agree):

Hey Patrick, while I agree the part where you negate (A) and it does not hurt but rather strengthens, I think you shouldn't consider the issue regarding people who have never been employed irrelevant. While it is true that the scope of the premise is about employee who get unemployed, the conclusion is about air pollution due to automobile exhaust in general, thus there's an assumption that exhaust from other source does not outweigh that of the unemployed during recession.

Because the conclusion is about air pollution in general, we have to consider EVERYONE driving. If the conclusion were just limited to people who had been previously employed, you'd be exactly right.

However, this part of (A) in Patrick's explanation is exactly right:

If we negate (A), we get "people who have never been employed drive LESS frequently during a recession". Does that hurt the argument?

No. The author is trying to prove that there's less car exhaust during a recession. When we negate (A), it STRENGTHENS the idea that there is less car exhaust during a recession.