VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Navinder wrote:
Hi
VeritasPrepKarishma,
In choice D, the % of people who did not own livestock and still supported the bill are still 88%. So, how come this is an assumption that people who are supporting it are influenced by it.
And in choice A, you expected 5 people who own livestock to vote. Isn't that an assumption. Thanks.
The point is that since the representation of livestock owners is higher than expected (12% instead of the expected 5%) among the voters, the argument is concluding that the bill affects the livestock owners more.
All we have to do is link up the premises with the conclusion.
The premises and the conclusion are missing an important link. The correct assumption tells you that adults who indicate support are more likely to be affected by the bill. You need to assume this to arrive at the conclusion.
Look at the flow:
Premises:
5% adults own livestock.
12% of those who indicated support to the bill own livestock.
Conclusion:
Livestock owners are
more affected by the bill.
Now add the conclusion in the flow:
Premises:
5% adults own livestock.
12% of those who indicated support to the bill own livestock.
Adults who indicate support for legislation are
more likely to be affected by that legislation
Conclusion:
Livestock owners are
more affected by the bill.
Did we plug in a gap? Yes, we did.
I am not assuming that 5% people should support the bill. It is what the demographics would have us believe. If everybody is neutral to the bill, ideally, the demographics of the people supporting the bill would be the same as the demographics of the population.
hi
VeritasPrepKarishma,
Despite you repeatedly explaining the argument,, I am still finding difficult to conclude the assumption.
Premises:
5% adults own livestock. (Say, 2000 people live in Idaho and 100 own livestock)
12% of those who indicated support to the bill own livestock. (Say, 100 supported and 12 of these own livestock as against the expected 5.). So, obviously, we can see that among the livestock owners, a few supported the bill.
Conclusion:
Livestock owners are more affected by the bill.
Assumption- Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.
But, I fail to understand that in the conclusion we are talking about all the livestock owners(100). In the assumption, we are talking about 12 of the livestock owners who supported the bill. So, how can we draw the picture that since 12 livestock owners who supported the act, all the livestock owners will be effected as well.
Here is the point: Say a city has 100 people - 10 doctors, 10 artists and 80 bloggers
Say there is a bill introduced on farming and 50% people support it. What would be the expected participation pattern? 5 doctor, 5 artist and 40 bloggers, right? The bill has nothing to do with any of the 3 professions and hence there is no reason to suspect that one profession will support it more or less.
Now say instead a bill on medical malpractices is introduced. Wouldn't we expect more doctors to take a stand on it depending on how it affects them? It is possible that if 50% people support it, 8 doctors support and rest 42 are made up of artists and bloggers. Or possibly no doctor supports (if they don't like it) and all 50 are made up of artists and bloggers.
This question makes a similar argument. Since 5% of the population owns livestock, you expect to see 5% of supporters to be livestock owners in case the bill has nothing to do with livestock. But if 12 of the livestock owners took a stand on it, it is more probable that it affects them in some way.
The assumption in our argument is that more people will stand up for a bill if it affects them.