## PT 27: Help with 1st LR, #22

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

Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:29 pm

### PT 27: Help with 1st LR, #22

I have narrowed it down to C and D, and I see how D works, but how do you disprove C?

Since, even according to D, not all hierarchical orgs operate the same way, then wouldn't C follow, that if an org is hierarchical you can't conclude anything?

Help is MUCH appreciated. thanks!

memaha

Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 am

### Re: PT 27: Help with 1st LR, #22

hellojd wrote:I have narrowed it down to C and D, and I see how D works, but how do you disprove C?

Since, even according to D, not all hierarchical orgs operate the same way, then wouldn't C follow, that if an org is hierarchical you can't conclude anything?

Help is MUCH appreciated. thanks!

Ok here is my explanation as to why C is wrong and D is right.

C- "From the fact that a given organization is hierachical nothing can reliably be concluded about how that organization operates."

The statements in the stimulus ONLY prove that not all hierarchical organizations operate the same. It does not make the extreme argument to saying nothing can be concluded about how hierarchical organizations operate. I think the key here is "nothing." If you pick D, then you are assuming that just because the organizations dont operate the same, that there is nothing you know about the way they operate.

I hope this makes sense/slash I'm not making a complete fool out of myself. Haha.

Shrimps

Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:04 pm

### Re: PT 27: Help with 1st LR, #22

"Some people" say that EVERYTHING about an organization's operations can be explained by the fact that the organization is hierarchical. The author refutes it by example: Public works is run differently than other bureaucratic --> hierarchical organizations.

Now, C requires you to jump to the opposite, but equally faulty generalization: NOTHING could be said about how an hierarchical organization operates. EVERYTHING and NOTHING are extreme terms, and there's nothing in the text to support either leap in logic. As a short cut, the vast majority of answer choices that use such absolute terms (everything, nothing, all, always) on LSAT LR are wrong, as long as these terms are not explicitly used in the stem (but not always, so be careful).

D is the only carefully worded inference that doesn't mention anything unsupported by the stem. And that's important - do not get outside the argument with your own leaps in logic, even if they seem correct. The correct answer on inference questions is usually pretty modest and broad generalizations based on the argument are a typical red herring.

Since, even according to D, not all hierarchical orgs operate the same way, then wouldn't C follow, that if an org is hierarchical you can't conclude anything?

You can conclude that there are bosses and subordinates, for example. Without those, there wouldn't be 'hierarchy'.

hellojd

Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:29 pm

### Re: PT 27: Help with 1st LR, #22

Shrimps wrote:"Some people" say that EVERYTHING about an organization's operations can be explained by the fact that the organization is hierarchical. The author refutes it by example: Public works is run differently than other bureaucratic --> hierarchical organizations.

Now, C requires you to jump to the opposite, but equally faulty generalization: NOTHING could be said about how an hierarchical organization operates. EVERYTHING and NOTHING are extreme terms, and there's nothing in the text to support either leap in logic. As a short cut, the vast majority of answer choices that use such absolute terms (everything, nothing, all, always) on LSAT LR are wrong, as long as these terms are not explicitly used in the stem (but not always, so be careful).

D is the only carefully worded inference that doesn't mention anything unsupported by the stem. And that's important - do not get outside the argument with your own leaps in logic, even if they seem correct. The correct answer on inference questions is usually pretty modest and broad generalizations based on the argument are a typical red herring.

Since, even according to D, not all hierarchical orgs operate the same way, then wouldn't C follow, that if an org is hierarchical you can't conclude anything?

You can conclude that there are bosses and subordinates, for example. Without those, there wouldn't be 'hierarchy'.

Got it. Thanks for the help guys, definitely helped.