jabhatta2
I actually think (C) is wrong for another reason entirely.
Pat has argued essentially that the above plan WILL WORK because banning side lectures impacts, only 1 % (For example) of the judges - a very small percentage of the overall community of judges. So from an average perspective, given the proposed plan will negatively impact only 1 % of the judging community, the plan is on average going to help the overall judge community (99 % of the community will benefit)
Hi,
You are doing an interesting breakdown--I also like to do breakdown for some CR questions, especially those involving statistics. But for the CR questions that do not give us enough information, doing breakdown barely helps sometimes.
In your scenario, even if we know only 1 percent of judge will be impacted by the ban, we can hardly evaluate the overall impact of the new salary program (salary increase + ban), because we have no idea how great the salary increase will be and how much loss the ban will lead to. So, as we are dealing with a Quant DS question whose correct answer is (E), it is hard to tell whether the average salary level will improve.
Moreover, as
avigutman says in his post, our task is not to evaluate the impact of the new program on current judges, but to evaluate whether the program will succeed in attracting the best candidates. So we need to know how the candidates will react to the ban. Pat's ignorance of these candidates is a severe reasoning error.
jabhatta2
But, just How bad will it get for the 1 % of the judging community specifically ?
Little bad ? Very bad ? Maybe very very bad
Perhaps the 1 % of the judging community is going to lose millions of dollars (because of the banning of side lectures)
We don't know what Pat believes is going to happen to the 1 % of the judging community.
So option (C) is technically **wrong** because we don't know what Pat believes will happen to the 1 % of the judging community
Perhaps Pat believes for the 1 % of the judges -- there are going to be LOTS OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS
You seem to have narrowed down your scope to the 1 percent of judges when you check the option (C), but the program will apply to all judges, and Pat also takes into account the whole group of judges in his response.
According to Pat's very own words, he thinks that
there will be little or no negative effects, and he means that for the whole group of judges. His conclusion is based on his own evaluation, and our task is to point out the mistakes in his argument and evaluation.
*
avigutman
Here's why I eliminate answer choice (C):
Quote:
(C) attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
What does the word "merely" mean? Merely: Only, and nothing more.
Is it true that Pat
only pointed to the absence of negative effects? Let's remind ourselves of Pat's first sentence:
No,
the raise in salary really does improve the situation.
Wouldn't you agree that the raise in salary is a positive effect?
Hi
avigutmanI thought about this issue too, but the main reason I do not find (C) bad is that I interpret the words "a certain change" as the whole program (salary increase and ban at the same time). Pat says one part of the program will bring about positive results, and another part of the program will have little or no negative effects. So, (C) seems to do a fine job in describing the way Pat replies--it seems fair to say that
Pat attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects.Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.If Pat said more about the salary increase, such as "the wage will be raised high enough to surpass the wages earned by most candidates," I would think that Pat does more than pointing to the absence of negative effects.
If you think the option (C) is very wrong itself, could you elaborate more when you have time?
Thanks!