Method of Argument Questions
Unlike flaw questions, method-of-argument questions don't always involve faulty logic. You’re simply asked to pick the choice that best describes how the author presents the case. The key skill involves being able to analyse the structure of an argument. If you can't identify the evidence and conclusion, there will be difficulty describing how an argument works. Similar to flaw questions, there are two distinct types of method-of-argument questions: one general, one specific. The first deals with classic arguments. These are the classic argumentative structures, such as "inferring a causal relationship from a correlation." The other type of method-of-argument question gives you a description of the argument in much more specific terms. An example of this might read, "The author presents the case of his mother in order to show that not all astronauts are men."
Parallel-Reasoning Questions
Parallel-reasoning questions require students to identify the answer choice that contains the argument most similar, or parallel, to that in the stimulus in terms of the reasoning employed. To do this kind of question, you need to grasp the distinction between an argument's form and its content. "A causal relationship concluded from a correlation" is a form-a type-of reasoning. Any argument withthis form can contain virtually any content. Your task is to abstract the stimulus argument's form, with as little content as possible, and then locate the answer choice that has the form most similar to that of the stimulus.
Don't let yourself be drawn to a choice based on its subject matter. A stimulus about music may have an answer choice that also involves music, but that doesn't mean that the reasoning in the two arguments is similar. A good approach to these questions is to see first if the argument can be symbolised algebraically, using Xs and Ys.
Take the following example:
All cows eat grass. This animal eats grass. Therefore, it must be a cow.
The flawed argument can be symbolized as such:
All X do Y. This does Y. Therefore, this must be an X.
If the stimulus can be symbolised this way, your job will be to search for the choice that can be symbolised in the same way. Your answer might look something like this:
Every politician (all X) tells lies (does Y). James is lying (this does Y). So he must be a politician (therefore, this must be an X)...
Notice how the exact wording doesn't have to match ("all X" means "every X"), and notice that the subject matter doesn't have to match in the least. What's important is the parallel structure. Sometimes an argument's reasoning isn't amenable to symbolisation. In such a case, if you can put a label on the type of argument being used. So long as you can summarise the argument's form without including content, you're well on your way to finding the parallel argument among the choices.
Tips
- All elements of the original argument must be present in its parallel. For example, if the original argument made a generalisation to a specific case, a second argument, no matter how similar in structure otherwise, cannot be parallel unless it makes a comparable generalisation.
- Stay away from answer choices written about the same subject matter as the original. This is an old trick of test makers, intended to catch those who mistakenly try to mimic the content rather than the structureof the stimulus.
- Statements that are logically parallel don't have to have all logical elements in the same sequence. Provided all elements of the first argument exist in the second, even in a different order, the two arguments are parallel.
- Most definitely assessed in the UMAT test.
0 Response to 'UMAT SECTION 1: UNDERSTANDING QUESTIONS PART FOUR'
Post a Comment