PT 10 Section 1 Q20

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.

Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

PT 10 Section 1 Q20

Postby Sandro » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:12 am

Im having a little trouble getting the paralleled reasoning down in exact words... anyone?

User avatar

Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: PT 10 Section 1 Q20

Postby theZeigs » Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:19 am

The argument can be viewed like this:

A = allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense
O = others are permitted access to our communications at their own expense
CE = censorship exists

Premise: -A or -O --> CE
contrapositive: -CE --> A and O

Conclusion: Public unwillingness to provide funds ....cannot be viewed as censorship.

So the reasoning is flawed because the author describes what makes censorship, i.e. the sufficient conditions that cause it, but does not describe the necessary conditions that arise from censorship. In other words, the two things the author says are sufficient to define censorship are not the only things that could be sufficient to bring it about, but the author assumes that they are. The key word here is "cannot" and "therefore" meaning the author believes that the reasons he gave are the ONLY reasons something can be viewed as censorship.

A) We are told what makes something unjust. We would expect to look for a conclusion that says that something else cannot be seen as sufficient for an unjust action. This is not the case.
B) This is a "reverse" answer (I use that term loosely). The author says that there is more than one sufficient (AND) condition required when the necessary (having good manners) exists, and that therefore meeting someone the first time, you wouldn't get to (presumably) see all of the sufficient conditions, so it's not possible to see if someone is well mannered. Basically, you could say this

1,2,3,4, etc. = things that are required to have good manners

1 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4 ---> good manners
only 1, who knows about the others ---> not sure about good manners

This isn't necessarily flawed. NOTE: You could probably look at this where "having good manners" is suff. and all the things required are necc., but I don't think it matters much
C) This doesn't have the same error of thinking that there is only one cause for a given effect. This says that one word can mean two things, so that both things describe must be caused by one thing.
D) This is correct. The author says that

R = risks life to benefit another
H = heroic


But there are other things that could be heroic. Specifically, the author says that endangering ones reputation cannot be heroic. Note the same word clues "thus" and "is not"

E) This reasoning is flawed because it assumes that everyone must agree for something to ever be called beautiful and also assumes that not everyone will see beauty in any thing. This is not the same error.

I hope this helps, this is a really hard problem and even tougher to try to describe why other answer choices are wrong. If I were to categorize this according to the LR bible, I would say that this is a "false dilemma" type of problem: it only considers a select few actions as possible (or a possible cause) and forces a decision among them. Not a perfect categorization though. Also, note that in the LR bible it is recommended that you "abstract" the stimulus and try to work that way. If I were to do it here, I would say:

There are two sufficient conditions for something to exist. Some other condition cannot be viewed as causing that thing to exist.

If you want to get a little more mathematical, you could say that "public funding..." is the opposite of "at their own expense" so you could say:

-A or -O --> CE

P = -A and -O

P --> -CE

Which would be a mistaken negation.

Hope this helps!


Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: PT 10 Section 1 Q20

Postby Sandro » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:14 pm

Thank you. I was having trouble getting the exact mechanical terms that made the argument flawed. I think the LR bibles advice would be a quicker solution... if you can quickly recognize the structure of the argument (which I think will come easier with more PT's done). Once you get into that it is easy to see how the argument says X and X are C, and if something isnt X and X then it cannot be C. The answer says if something is X it is H, and clearly something that isnt X cant be H.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests