jmjm wrote:Hey dave,
Do you believe that in strengthen/weaken questions only one answer choice strengthens/weakens respectively the argument by even a little bit like some experts (shinners) believe? If so, can you discuss why 55.LR1.22 B and 55.LR1.23 A is wrong.
Superprep-B.LR1.21 seems wrong as the necessary assumption doesn't have to preclude
All noneconomic factors? The explanation offered in the book doesn't address this.
No, I don't.
I think we can find other examples in which wrong answers do
seem to provide at least some support for (or evidence against) the argument. In fact, LSAC seems specifically to attempt to inoculate themselves against this very possibility both in the language of the instructions ("...though more than one choice may conceivably answer the question...") and the language of the question stem ("...does most to..." or "...most strengthens [or weakens]...").
So, no, I don't think it's impossible
for a wrong answer to offer at least some modicum of support (indeed, we have some evidence that this may happen on occasion). Still, over the vast majority
of questions, this is not the case; you'll almost always find one answer that does the job and four that simply do not. So don't let the possibility of the rare exception distract you from the fact of the great majority (this would be something akin to letting the perfect become the enemy of the good).
To your particular questions:55.1.22
I don't find (B) particularly compelling for two reasons:
1. We have no idea whether the correlation discussed in the passage includes people who take medication. If it doesn't, then (B) doesn't matter at all.
2. We have no indication from (B) in what way moods are affected; if the effect is one of increased tranquility, then again, (B) doesn't hurt at all.
In order for (B) to work, then, we'd really need to add two pieces of evidence to it. Without those assumptions, it doesn't carry much (any?) water.55.1.23
Again, I don't find (A) particularly persuasive. I understand your attraction; if it's happening in other places, then it may not be a fluke of the business professor's classes. However, noting only that "several" other students behave similarly doesn't provide much by way of support. How many is "several"?
Because if we're talking about 6 additional students, then we haven't really done anything appreciable to help the argument.
Again, remember that in both of these questions, we've been specifically asked not
which of the five weakens or strengthens, but which most
weakens or strengthens. So it's certainly academically possible to assert that some choice/s other than the right answer do something to help or to hurt, but that doesn't change the fact that those other answer choices are still all wrong
; they are all demonstrably less effective than is the credited response. Make sense?B.1.21
So, the first doctrine says the explanation is always
economic. The author says that's incorrect because the explanation is sometimes economic and
But so what?
The first doctrine never said the explanations are only
economic! It just said that they're always
economic; maybe sometimes they're economic and also other things, too.
The author has confused the words always
, and has acted as though the first doctrine said that explanations were only
If that's what the first doctrine had in fact said, then, yeah; pointing out that it's not only economic would've been devastating. But that's not what the first doctrine said; it's just something the author has assumed.
Let me know if you need more!