Q2 - Editorial: It is usually

[josh.glenn44]

Could someone walk me through this and show how C is a better answer than D. It seems like D would strengthen the answer more than C, so what exactly is wrong with it??

[timmydoeslsat]

This is a question stem that can be looked at as a sufficient principle question, although it sometimes will not totally guarantee the conclusion.

The conclusion is that we should regulate the internet somehow. We do not discuss the idea of regulation in the premises.

What we do know from the evidence is the following:

If you want to make accurate information useful, you have to distinguish the good information from the misinformation.

We need a link between distinguishing the information and how regulation plays a role in that.

(A) Would hurt the argument.
(B) Would also weaken the argument in a meaningful way.
(C) Gives us the idea of how regulation can help with distinguishing information.
(D) does not bring up regulation at all.
(E) Hurts the argument about why we need regulation.

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Great convo on this, but I'm going to take it on in a little more of a full-on way. This is a principle question, meaning it's in the assumption family. This means we should begin by working out the core (Conclusion/Premises), then seeking the gap in that core:

Conclusion: Information on the internet should be regulated

Premises: It's tough to tell what information is accurate

The assumption here is pretty straightforward:

Assumption: Regulation of information helps you work out what information is accurate.

Notice how this assumption, when added to the argument, makes the argument work. This is all you ever need to do on principle questions. Now let's look through the answer choices.

A) This principle would really be problematic, because the argument WANTS us to regulate misinformation. If that regulation would seriously hurt the amount of information people could access, that would be BAD.

B) This principle also hurts our argument. Our conclusion is predicated on the idea that regulating the information is going to help us distinguish the accurate info from the inaccurate info.

C) ANSWER. This is what we're looking for. If regulation helps people differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information, then we SHOULD regulate it.

D) This is why it's SO important to focus on the core before you begin looking at answer choices. A test-taker who recognized the core before starting will immediately see that this answer choice doesn't even mention regulation, which means it's totally off-base. Even though answer choice D is likely true, that would only make it the answer to an inference question (i.e. we can infer this from the information given, in that the argument only wants to regulate the information in order to help people find accurate information), not the answer to a principle question. This principle does not help explain why we should REGULATE information.

E) This is the opposite of what we want. We want people to have access to accurate, regulated information INSTEAD OF useless, unregulated information.

Hope that helps!

-t

[wj097]

One important lesson I learned from this question: sometimes prephrasing can eat up your time.

I totally agree why (C) is the best answer here. No other answer choices really get close to what we need as a principle.

But the issue for me when I was taking the test was that (C) did not fit into what I had already phrased as a right fit. This is what I saw as the structure of the stimulus:

P1: It is difficult to determine which info is accurate <-X
P2: If not X, then accurate info is useless
C: Info on internet should be regulated.

From this, I first thought that we need connection between "useless" and "regulated". Because those are the key terms
dangling out of the argument.
But as I was going through the answer choices, I could not find one that is even close to what I need. But fortunately I could eliminate others. I feel relieved this was #2 Q.

After I reviewed, I found out what made me confused was the sentence right above the conclusion: "Accurate info is useless, blah". If this wasn't there, it must have been much easier for me to choose (C) and move on with a great level of certainty feeling.

[pewals13]

This caught me off guard as a #2:

Core:

Accurate information useful-------->Easily distinguished from misinformation

Vast array of misinformation on the internets

THEREFORE:

Information on the internet should regulated

Note:

Anytime you're asked to strengthen a "should" conclusion you generally want an answer choice that establishes a positive benefit of the recommendation (which may simply be the avoidance of a negative)

Answer Choices:

(A) This establishes a negative of regulation

(B) This suggests regulation is ineffective

(C) This establishes a positive benefit of regulation because it would help make accurate information useful (by helping meet the necessary condition for usefulness)

(D) This is out of scope. It requires too many additional assumptions to work. First, you would have to assume accurate information is sometimes overlooked on the internet, something unsupported by the stimulus. If you were to make this assumption you would then have to assume a connection between the unacceptability of people having access to misinformation and the necessity of regulation, which seems a lot like the gap in the original core. This is too weak.

(E) This establishes a negative of regulation