Q21 - Sarah: Some schools seek to

[tamwaiman]

The answer (C) mentions an assumption; since I suppose this assumption is that "the volunteering habit cannot be fostered in a person who has not yet volunteered" and the assumption is defined as "an unstated premise(evidence)", so I eliminate (C).

Could the assumption be described in the stimulus explicitly?
Thanks.

--------------------------------------------

Yes what i meant is (C) (a typo); now i correct it.
Thank you so much! : )

[bbirdwell]

Could the assumption be described in the stimulus explicitly?

Nope. Assumptions are fundamentally unstated.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about (B) -- I think you're talking about (C)?

If so, that's a great question. The assumption in Sarah's argument is somewhat subtle.

Sarah:
Premises:
1. someone who has been forced to do something has not volunteered
2. volunteerism cannot be fostered in someone who has not yet volunteered

Conclusion: the policy of requiring students to do community service cannot succeed at fostering a habit of volunteerism.

What Sarah assumes here is that those forced to volunteer, and who are therefore not "volunteers" in her mind, will not volunteer later. The missing connection in her argument is that between "not yet volunteered" and "can't make a habit of volunteering."

The kids she mentions have been forced to do service and therefore are not really "volunteers."... YET! However, what if they volunteer for something later? Then, in fact, the program will have been successful and Sarah will be wrong.

This is what Paul says.

Paul:
Premise:
1. some students forced to volunteer have enjoyed it so much that they volunteered to do something later

Conclusion: the policy is sometimes successful

So, you see, Paul directly attacks that gap in Sarah's logic. See what I mean?

(A) unsupported
(B) unsupported -- "certain activities"
(C) yes!
(D) out of scope -- "motives"
(E) out of scope -- "another policy"

Do you see it now?

[Shiggins]

I read over your explanation bbirdwell and it helped. There is one thing I would like to clarify though when I went over this problem.

The conclusion states:
There is no way this policy can succeed "by itself"

I understood this as "by itself": the program-> ~foster habit for volunteering

The evidence I saw as: force students-> ~volunteers -> ~foster habit for volunteering.

So the gap I saw was that the program needs something else in order to foster a habit for volunteering. The evidence Sarah gives shows us that schools want to foster a habit but so far it has not been produced.

Paul comes along and says that the program has caused some students to develop a habit for volunteering and this was done without any other instrument supplemented. The program worked by itself.

If anyone could clarify what I wrote or add. I just want to make sure what I wrote is logical and is a correct way for solving this problem. Thank you.

[noah]

Brian's busy right now, so let me see if I can help

The conclusion states:
There is no way this policy can succeed "by itself"

I understood this as "by itself": the program-> ~foster habit for volunteering

The evidence I saw as: force students-> ~volunteers -> ~foster habit for volunteering.

I probably wouldn't approach this as formally as you, but if I were to, perhaps I'd have this: the program --> force students --> ~ volunteering --> ~ foster habit of volunteering

(more or less what you have).

So the gap I saw was that the program needs something else in order to foster a habit for volunteering.

This isn't the gap, this is what is stated in Sarah's conclusion. She states that the program is not enough.

The evidence Sarah gives shows us that schools want to foster a habit but so far it has not been produced.

I don't see where she says that it has not been produced. I think she says it cannot be produced. Somewhat different.

Paul comes along and says that the program has caused some students to develop a habit for volunteering and this was done without any other instrument supplemented. The program worked by itself.

Paul doesn't talk about whether it worked by itself. He concludes that it works.

It seems like you paid a lot of attention to the "by itself" - but I don't think it warranted that much attention. In short, the program doesn't work. It's true that the "by itself" leaves open the possibility that it works in tandem with something else, but that's not particularly relevant here.

I see it as this:

Sarah: program based on forced "volunteering" --> program not fostering volunteerism

Paul: some students do end up volunteering again --> program works

I hope that helps.

[Shiggins]

Thank you Noah for going over each part of my question. It helped me see some of the mistakes I had in interpreting the argument.

When I had taken this test timed I had gotten it right. I had diagrammed it similarly to how you had it at the end of your explanation. I saw how Paul had brought up considerations that completely ruined Sarah's argument. So when reading choice C I felt good about it.

Your absolutely right about looking into "by itself" a lot. When I was reviewing this test I wanted to get a full grasp of this question. So I guess I overestimated its importance but then it was useful for the next question.