PT 11 Sec 2 Q 17 Help?

User avatar
nonpareilpearl
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:42 pm

PT 11 Sec 2 Q 17 Help?

Postby nonpareilpearl » Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:48 am

For this question I was able to "successfully" eliminate...all the answer choices. I'll try and keep this vague, but the original question seemed to be more of an X vs Y. The only reason I eliminated what seems to be the correct answer was because it did not seem to follow this aspect of the original argument. Help?

Atlas LSAT Brian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:12 pm

Re: PT 11 Sec 2 Q 17 Help?

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:18 pm

The original argument is sort of an X vs Y, but that's not a logical flaw. Your job is to identify the flaw, and then find an argument that contains the most similar flaw.

So what's wrong with the reasoning in the original?

The argument says, concerning the traffic problem, X is better for the city than Y because, in the past, Y has supported its own interests to the detriment of the city.

Reference to past behavior is not a logically good reason to reject a current proposal, so we should look for an argument that looks to the past to support a current decision.

(A) X should be rejected because it does not serve the city's interest. Not a match!

(B) school board should support X because X was recommended by consultants. Not a match!

(C) X is better than Y because X supports city as a whole but Y protects special interests. Really close, but not a match! It's a good choice until the end. We need it to say Y has protected special interests in the past.

(D) not a match.

(E) X (light rail) is better for suburbs than Y (its opponent: city government), because Y has always ignored needs of the suburbs. Due to this reference to the past as support for its conclusion, this choice is a good match!

Does that help?

User avatar
nonpareilpearl
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:42 pm

Re: PT 11 Sec 2 Q 17 Help?

Postby nonpareilpearl » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:30 pm

It does help, and thank you!, but I am still a little confused.

I guess I was assuming that X and Y needed to be "Like". For instance two differing ideas, or two different foods, etc. For E, X is a mode of transportation and Y is a body of decision makers (for lack of a better phrase). I feel like E should have something like X = train, Y = taxi (where X&Y are both modes of transportation). Does that make sense?

Atlas LSAT Brian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:12 pm

Re: PT 11 Sec 2 Q 17 Help?

Postby Atlas LSAT Brian » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:40 pm

That's an interesting distinction, but one that actually fits the original argument quite well with a closer look. In the original, X is Chen's plan, and Y is Smith Stores. Just like in (E), where the light rail is a plan (the "planned" light rail) and its opponent is the government.

User avatar
nonpareilpearl
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:42 pm

Re: PT 11 Sec 2 Q 17 Help?

Postby nonpareilpearl » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:56 pm

OOOOOHHHHH! It's amazing how clear it appears when I understand it. Thank you so much!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BobBoblaw, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot], yamaji96 and 5 guests