Q3 - I cannot study at a university

[WaltGrace1983]

This is the same argument that is examined in question 4 by the way but this question focuses on Sally's reasoning. I am really confused by this as even though I got the question right I was left very unsatisfied. Can someone help me out?

Sally: I cannot study at a university with an alcohol problem
→
If nothing done about the alcohol problem then I'll have to transfer to a school without fraternities

Initially I was thinking that this problem would focus on the connection between the alcohol problem and the fraternities, something like "if a university doesn't have fraternities then it won't have an alcohol problem." What is going on between (B) and (E)?

I know this is PT10 but I think I can definitely still learn something from it.

[foralexpark]

Sally's argument

P: I can't study in schools where there is an alcohol problem.

C: IF nothing is done about it, I will go to a different school where there is no fraternity.


So you are right in that Sally assumes that:
"The existence of fraternity is related to alcohol problems"

But, Sally also assumes that "IF nothing is done, she WILL MOVE TO OTHER SCHOOLS"

so she is also assuming that there are schools where she can study without being bothered by alcohol problems

Try Negation:

There are NO universities that have no alcohol problem (All universities have alcohol problem)

then, her argument that she will move to other schools to avoid alcohol problem is totally weakened (because she cannot move to different school, even if nothing is done about her current school)

hope this helps!

[mjacob0511]

S: I cant study in a university with an alcohol problem so if nothing is done I will go to a school with no frats. Y: Alcohol is a cultural problem not simply frat problem and it occurs even at universities without frats.

(A) Not necessary she just wants to go to a university where there aren’t frats.
(B) She said "unless something is done"...
(C) MORE widespread?
(D) Too young? Not necessary
(E) Well she said she will go to one so there has to be one. Lame but good.

[WaltGrace1983]

S: I cant study in a university with an alcohol problem so if nothing is done I will go to a school with no frats. Y: Alcohol is a cultural problem not simply frat problem and it occurs even at universities without frats.

(A) Not necessary she just wants to go to a university where there aren’t frats.
(B) She said "unless something is done"...
(C) MORE widespread?
(D) Too young? Not necessary
(E) Well she said she will go to one so there has to be one. Lame but good.

My thoughts exactly

So I guess the point is that this argument does NOT focus on the connection between the premise and the conclusion, like so many (almost all) do. It rather focuses on the possibility of the conclusion.

I guess every argument implicitly assumes that its conclusion is possible.

Is that what is going on? Does a geek have anything to chime in with? Thanks for the analysis though everyone! It certainly helps!

[ohthatpatrick]

Good discussion.

The answer DOES seem a bit atypical. It's pretty fair to say an author is always assuming his conclusion is possible.

Unfortunately, the conclusion here only assumes that it's possible to transfer to a frat-less university.

If we negate (E) and get "All universities have alcohol problems", we haven't really contradicted the possibility of the conclusion.

Would you say that the author is assuming that
"IF a university doesn't have a frat, it won't have an alcohol problem"?

I feel like that's Sally's logic. If not THAT definitive, she's at least believing, "IF a university doesn't have a frat, then it has a better chance of not having an alcohol problem."

We can see how negated (E) totally rips into that assumption.

And in that sense, it actually DOES have something to do with her premise about frats.