melmoththewanderer wrote:Hey BP, I have a question about PT36-S3-Q5. This is the question about Loux and her grandson.
I moseyed over to the Manhattan blog, which says that B is irrelevant. I'm not clear on exactly how its irrelevant and I want to hear an explanation on why it is irrelevant.
So we have Loux's estate, which has a certain value. We have the outstanding debts, which have a certain value. The executor needs to sell some stuff off to settle the debts, then the grandson gets the rest. He's planning to sell off Stoke Farm, and we conclude that Loux would have been cool with that.
To weaken this, I'd need to find a reason why Loux might have wanted Zembaty to sell off other parts of the estate to settle the debts. (E) does that by saying that, while Loux never expressed a desire for it, her grandson did, and Loux expressed a desire to make him happy with her estate.
(B), on the other hand, just tells me that Loux told her grandson she'd take care of him. Well, she's done that. The grandson's getting anything left over in the will after the debts are settled. Whether Zembaty sells the farm or not, the estate will end up at the same value, so this does nothing to my conclusion about selling the farm.
In short, the conclusion is about Zembaty's decision to sell the farm instead of another part of the estate that has the same value as the farm. If I want to have an effect on the argument, the answer choice has to mention something about the farm. (B) doesn't, so it's irrelevant to my conclusion.
If this doesn't make sense, can you give me an argument for why you think it is relevant? I might be able to provide a better explanation if I come at it from that direction.
I also have a question about PT25-S4-Q9. This is a necessary assumption about the Federici Art Museum. My issue here is with the answer choice B itself, and while it is the best of the bunch, I still can't convince myself that it is a necessary assumption. Is this a case where you have to use the principle of charity and just assume that the curator is giving the full picture? What B says to me is if painting is sold by board then it must be recommended by the curator. But my issue is doesn't this then assume that only the paintings recommended by the curator do not detract from the quality? This seems to be left open by the stimulis, however.
Ugh, if you read through that principle of charity thread, you know my thoughts on it. Forget that it exists, as it's never come up on the LSAT before and I don't expect it to again.
As to your issue, no, it doesn't assume that only the paintings recommended by the curator do not detract from the quality. It does assume, however, that every painting recommended by the curator does, in fact, not detract from the quality. However, it's fine to have multiple necessary assumptions in a Necessary assumption question, each of which is individually necessary for the argument to work.
Here's my argument:
The Board is selling some paintings.
The curator says that there are inferior paintings that don't add to the quality.
The Board selling some paintings won't detract from the museum's quality.
To get there, there are two huge jumps:
1) The curator is right in his assessment of these paintings
2) The Board is only selling the paintings viewed by the curator as inferior.
If you take either of these away, the argument collapses. If the curator is wrong, I can't conclude that the Board isn't detracting from the quality. If the Board sells paintings not recommended by the curator, I can't conclude that the Board isn't detracting from the quality. Both are necessary to use these premises to get to this conclusion. So you're right that we're assuming the curator is correct, but that's fine - this isn't a Sufficient assumption question. Multiple statements can be independently necessary to an argument. We have two possible answers here, and only the latter shows up in the answers (which is always the case - you won't have both).