PT 26, Section 2 #5

bkred
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:44 am

PT 26, Section 2 #5

Postby bkred » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:58 am

It's a weaken question about a journalism school's program and its value. The dean says that the program has value because 65% of its graduates went on to jobs in journalism.
I chose (B) because I thought that if some of the newspaper editors didn't regard journalism school as a necessary part of the training of a journalist, maybe the 65% of graduates did not get jobs because of their training at the school, but for some other reason having nothing to do with the program. If the people who are hiring think it's unnecessary, how valuable can it actually be?
The correct answer is (A).
Ok, if the graduates already had those jobs and were just there to improve their skills, you could say the program did not help them get jobs. But the stimulus explicitly says that they went on to internships or jobs. So maybe they went on to better jobs because of the program? And even if they did not find jobs because of the program, possibly they improved their skills, (which was their original purpose of being there) and in that case, can you really say that the program did not have value?
As for (B), would it have made a much better answer choice if the "Some" was eliminated?

Thank you.
Any help would be appreciated.

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 26, Section 2 #5

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:27 am

You already see what makes answer choice (B) incorrect. Now you just have to trust your judgment. "Some" newspaper editors simply isn't strong enough to challenge the conclusion that the Hyperion School of Journalism is of value to its students. Also, answer choice (B) says that they believe it's not a necessary part of the training of a journalist, but just because something isn't necessary, doesn't mean that it isn't valuable!

(A) weakens the argument. If more than half of the students at the Hyperion School of Journalism already had jobs, then the fact that only 65% had jobs afterward, does not show that the school provided much of a service to its students.
(B) is tempting but not correct for the reasons above.
(C) is irrelevant.
(D) is irrelevant. We would need to know whether those other schools were of value to their students before this information could be useful.
(E) says that the school is selective, but not necessarily valuable!

I hope this helps clear this one up! Let me know if you'd still like discuss answer choices (A) or (B) a bit more...

petrovovitch@
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: PT 26, Section 2 #5

Postby petrovovitch@ » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:55 pm

the words some and the fact that it could still be valuable according to matt is not the reason B is wrong. B is wrong because these people are still getting hired! even if it said all newspaper editors said that journalism school isn't necessary it would still be the wrong answer.

the argument is: go to our program -> 65% chance you get a job -> our program has value

firstly you should recognize that this a causal argument and therefore the obvious way to weaken it is to show that the conclusion isn't a function of the premise i.e. the program doesn't affect job prospects. and A does just this - it shows that they already had jobs to begin with!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, BobBoblaw, cianchetta0, dontsaywhatyoumean, DumbHollywoodActor, l3g@l33s3, neptunian and 10 guests