betterLawyerUP wrote:Just want to echo appreciation for Ben helping us out, if you have time could you look at T29, S4, Q12. I posted this in another thread but I am still kind of clueless.
In essence, drivers with points and convicted offense should be sentenced to jail or reeducation. Reeducation should only be offered if the driver is likely to be made more responsible. It is always almost impossible to make these drivers more responsible.
Answer A should be wrong because it is only could be true. Always almost does not deprive the option of reeducation, so you cannot label all the drivers as done in answer A for a MBT. What if the driver being mentioned can be made responsible, thus they should not be sent to jail, thus A doesn't really apply. I was under the impression MSS are basically Must be trues because LSAT does not leave any room for debate.
Hey there! Happy to help.
So no, you really need to get this idea out of your head ASAP. MSS questions are absolutely not the same as MBT questions, and a CBT statement can
be the correct answer of a MSS question, provided that it is supported by the stimulus. Anyone who tells you that MBT and MSS are the same should be locked away forever in a sound proof room. Seriously. They are different, and you should treat them differently. The correct answer to a MBT question is a direct logical implication
of the stimulus. The correct answer to a MSS question is merely supported by the reasoning in the stimulus, but it does not
have to be true.
You're right that the LSAT does not leave any room for debate. However, MSS questions do not need to be the same as MBT questions for this to be the case. In a MSS question, you will have one answer that is strongly supported by the stimulus, and four answers that are not supported by the stimulus at all
(although, in difficult questions, they may appear to be--they are not).
Answer choice A is strongly supported by the stimulus. If it's "always almost impossible" to make drivers with lots of demerits more responsible, and drivers should receive re-education only if they're "likely" to be made more responsible, then those drivers probably shouldn't receive re-education. The first sentence says drivers should either receive re-education or be sentenced to jail, since we don't want crimes to go unpunished. This is the point the stimulus is driving at (forgive the pun). If the rest of the stimulus rules out one of two alternatives (driver re-education), and something undesirable (crime unpunished) would result if neither option is taken, then this supports
the conclusion that we should take the other option (jail time). Note that this isn't a logical necessity. It's merely supported. There could be other ways of keeping crime from going unpunished without jail time or driver re-education. But sending the drivers to jail, as stated in answer choice A, is the most strongly supported outcome w/r/t the information in the stimulus.
B through E are not supported by the stimulus at all.
B) is out because we don't know anything about the chances of driver re-education relative to other ways
of making bad drivers more responsible. We just know that the chances, in absolute terms, are slim.
C) is wrong because the "harshness" of the punishment is irrelevant. The stimulus is merely concerned with keeping crimes from going unpunished.
D) is kaput because the stimulus tells us nothing about drivers with no serious offenses. Driver re-education might be good for your average law abiding soccer mom.
E) is garbage, similarly to D, because we know nothing about drivers with many demerits but no convictions. The stimulus only tells us about drivers with many demerits "who have additionally been convicted" of serious driving offenses.
Please let me know if you have any questions about MSS questions generally--I'd be happy to help correct any misconceptions. I struggled a lot with MSS questions in the beginning of my prep, because I failed to properly understand the task. My mistake was that I assumed that "supported" was a kind of loosely permissive word, but in the context of the LSAT, it actually isn't. If you spend enough time with wrong
answer choices in MSS questions, you'll gradually be able to get a concrete sense of what that word "supported" really means. Ask yourself why those statements are not supported; scour the stimulus until you're completely confident with your reasoning. Always rely on your process of elimination, especially for questions where the logic of the stimulus alone won't carry you to the correct answer. It's almost always easier to see why an answer is not
supported than why it is supported. This is true for all of the quiet killer question types, which seem to allow for a dangerous amount of room for debate--most notably strengthen, weaken, and MSS.