2 LR questions from PT58

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

2 LR questions from PT58

Postby MissLucky » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:52 pm

#16:
correct answer is (B), but I chose (D).

I'm really having trouble getting sold on (B) here. I feel like it is too extreme. Just because industrialists tend to mess up and OVERsimplify when addressing farming problems, doesn't mean basic simplification or face-value analysis of the problems in farming is not okay. It seems like a big leap to me to go from "oversimplification" creates more problems for agriculture, to the recommendation that the problems of farming should be viewed in all their complexity. there are quite a few intermediate, moderating stages between these 2 poles (between oversimplification and full out complexity) that could be just the right approach to farming, no?

furthermore, I realize that (D) talks about industrial solutions as opposed to industrialists themselves as discussed and criticized in most of the stimulus. BUT, I still feel like (D) is best illustrated because in line 6, Madden explicitly says "...a fact alien to industrial logic" and thereby does expressly censure "industrial solutions" as clearly mentioned in (D). I feel like if it didn't state that in line 6, I would find little reason to hang on to (D) as a decent answer choice.

if you could help me see how (B) is still the better choice, i would be greatly appreciative. thanks a lot!

#18:
I chose C since it came closest to what I prephrased.

this argument is so weird to me. Isn't the main flaw that the author says "since the majority of them obviously disapprove of the attempt" when in fact, we learn in line 2 of the stimulus that the majority are unaware! So I thought the flaw was that the author presumes, without justification, that the students that are unaware of the attempt disapprove of the attempt.

(E) totally sidesteps this main flaw and still leaves the argument with a huge gaping flaw.

which begs the question: in flaw questions, is it okay for the correct answer to totally leave the major flaw unaddressed?



Help? THANKS so much!

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby tomwatts » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:02 pm

PT 58, S4, Q16: Check that first sentence again. The sentence says, "that strategy usually leads to oversimplification." Which strategy? Well, the one of addressing "problems by simplifying them." The argument seems to say that the strategy of simplifying problems usually, in farming, leads to oversimplifying. So no, there is no middle ground, according to the argument. It's saying that if you simplify, you oversimplify, in farming.

At the time, I eliminated D because "never" seemed too strong given the "usually" in Madden's first sentence. I'm not entirely convinced that's the right reason, but I'm not seeing anything better now.

PT 58, S4, Q18: I think you've just misunderstood what E is saying. So C is fine all the way up until it says that it must "not be a good idea," which isn't the conclusion of the argument at all. The argument doesn't ever address whether it's a good idea. (EDIT: Gah, whoops. See below.) So C is out. E addresses exactly what you're saying because if they're not aware of it, they cannot approve of it (hence the lack of approval), but the argument assumes that that's the same thing as active disapproval. That is, it blurs the distinction between the two by assuming that one is essentially the same as the other.

In general, flaw questions phrased the way this question stem is phrased address the biggest flaw, but maybe not in exactly the same words as you'd put it. Other phrasings of flaw questions might address a minor flaw, not the biggest one.
Last edited by tomwatts on Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby MissLucky » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:12 pm

tomwatts wrote:PT 58, S4, Q16: Check that first sentence again. The sentence says, "that strategy usually leads to oversimplification." Which strategy? Well, the one of addressing "problems by simplifying them." The argument seems to say that the strategy of simplifying problems usually, in farming, leads to oversimplifying. So no, there is no middle ground, according to the argument. It's saying that if you simplify, you oversimplify, in farming.

At the time, I eliminated D because "never" seemed too strong given the "usually" in Madden's first sentence. I'm not entirely convinced that's the right reason, but I'm not seeing anything better now.

PT 58, S4, Q18: I think you've just misunderstood what E is saying. So C is fine all the way up until it says that it must "not be a good idea," which isn't the conclusion of the argument at all. The argument doesn't ever address whether it's a good idea. So C is out. E addresses exactly what you're saying because if they're not aware of it, they cannot approve of it (hence the lack of approval), but the argument assumes that that's the same thing as active disapproval. That is, it blurs the distinction between the two by assuming that one is essentially the same as the other.

In general, flaw questions phrased the way this question stem is phrased address the biggest flaw, but maybe not in exactly the same words as you'd put it. Other phrasings of flaw questions might address a minor flaw, not the biggest
one.


thanks so much!

a couple follow up questions though:
in regards to question 16, the conclusion says "More farming problems are created than solved when agriculture is the domain of the industrialist, not of the farmer..." so, to me, that was a strong stance that could be support by (D)'s strong language (i.e. its use of "never"). In essence the conclusion is saying that there is net harm done to farming when it is the domain of the industrialist, so it would be hard to imagine why and when industrial solutions for problems in farming should ever be sought.

in regards to question 18, I guess I just didn't/don't think you can characterize people who are unaware of some plan of action as having a lack of approval for it - lack of approval is still active in some sense, and without being aware of something how can they lack approval for it? To me, they just don't fit into any category. Also, in terms of (C), I thought when the argument said in its conclusion that "the university should not unionize" it meant that unionizing was not a good idea (as stated in C). i'm still a little confused as to what the difference is?

thanks so much!!!!

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby tomwatts » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:50 pm

MissLucky wrote:in regards to question 16, the conclusion says "More farming problems are created than solved when agriculture is the domain of the industrialist, not of the farmer..." so, to me, that was a strong stance that could be support by (D)'s strong language (i.e. its use of "never"). In essence the conclusion is saying that there is net harm done to farming when it is the domain of the industrialist, so it would be hard to imagine why and when industrial solutions for problems in farming should ever be sought.

This type of question — not sure what the universal term is, but you could call it Principle-Conform — typically is associated with a passage that doesn't have a conclusion, so to say that "the conclusion says" anything isn't really correct. That's just the last sentence, not a conclusion as such. But that's not really the issue with your line of reasoning.

There's a gap between what that last sentence says and what the answer choice says. It just says that farming should be the domain of the industrialist and not the farmer. That is, don't have the industrialist entirely take over and exclude farmers. The answer choice says, don't involve industrial ideas at all ever. Farmers could seek industrial solutions when industrial solutions are appropriate; it's industrialist reasoning, always seeing problems as separate and unrelated when they sometimes are not, that is the issue. If a solution that involves something industrial somehow is appropriate by normal farmer reasoning, then industrial solutions are fine.

(I think you mentioned this issue in your first post. There's still a jump involved in going from "industrial logic" to "industrial solutions." A piece of industrial logic might be to think that water retention should be dealt with separately from drainage. An industrial solution might be a terrace. In some cases, terraces — industrial solutions — might be appropriate, though farmer logic is needed to know this, not industrial logic.)

MissLucky wrote:in regards to question 18, I guess I just didn't/don't think you can characterize people who are unaware of some plan of action as having a lack of approval for it - lack of approval is still active in some sense, and without being aware of something how can they lack approval for it? To me, they just don't fit into any category.

You're overinterpreting the word "lack." To lack something is to not have it. It's absent. Well, they have no feeling at all about this, so they certainly lack approval; they don't have approval.

If you check a dictionary, one of the definitions you might get for "lack" is "to be without." They certainly are without approval for this; they don't think about it at all, because they're not aware of it.

MissLucky wrote:Also, in terms of (C), I thought when the argument said in its conclusion that "the university should not unionize" it meant that unionizing was not a good idea (as stated in C). i'm still a little confused as to what the difference is?

Whoops, I mis-spoke. At any rate, C is entirely missing the major flaw that you brought up, which is that they don't disapprove at all, which, if I remember correctly, was the initial reason that I eliminated it. It had nothing to do with the giant leap from not knowing about it to disapproving of it.

It's not really accurate to say that it goes "people don't know about it -> it's bad" because it goes "people don't know about it -> people disapprove of it -> it's bad." Answer choice C makes it sound as though the argument does the former, whereas answer choice E gets at the issue in the latter.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby MissLucky » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:27 am

wow these were TERRIFIC explanations - you are amazing. btw, #16 was SUPER tricky. I understand it in hindsight now that you've explained it all, but super tricky especially under the time constraints and pressure of test day I think.

THANK you!!!

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby tomwatts » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:29 pm

No problem! It's nice to explain to someone appreciative! :)

And heck yes, they're tricky.

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby wjun15 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:53 pm

can someone explain PT58 #12 on the second LR section?

What is the implicit assumption? and why is D and C wrong?

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby wjun15 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:25 pm

also, a questions on section 2 (LR) #11

when you say there is a causal relation between, lets say having a good teacher and getting good grades, does that mean everytime you have a good teacher you should have good grades?

or is possible for you to have a good teacher and not have good grades and still be considered causal?

i might be confusing correlation and causation

emseeaych
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby emseeaych » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:27 pm

wjun15 wrote:can someone explain PT58 #12 on the second LR section?

What is the implicit assumption? and why is D and C wrong?


I will call the two people in the conversation S and R. The implicit assumption is that "best work" (abbrev: BW) and "work that gains widespread popular acclaim" (WPA) are mutually exclusive categories, so that if a piece is WPA, it is not BW. In symbols: WPA --> ~BW. If L is the abbreviation for "make a living", you can actually formalize S's premises as follows: L --> WPA --> ~BW. The contrapositive of that is BW --> ~WPA --> ~L. In words, if an artist makes a living from his or her work, he or she is producing works that get popular acclaim, and therefore he or she is not producing his or her best work; conversely, if an artist produces his or her best work, she or he won't be producing works that get popular acclaim, and therefore he or she won't be able to make a living. But presumably we want artists to produce their best work (another implicit assumption in S's argument), which is why, S concludes, government should subsidize artists.

WPA --> ~BW is an implicit assumption because S never states it, but it must be true if S's argument is to hold. Try assuming that it's not true and see if S's argument still works! In fact that's exactly what R's response does -- claims that it's not true -- but it's worded in a confusing way, so it's easy to miss that unless you read it closely. One tip: Note that the word "must" in R's response introduces the necessary condition of the assumption, ~BW.

C is incorrect because R doesn't necessarily accept S's conclusion. It's unclear. She could, or she could not. She's simply disputing that Sahira's premises are correct. Because of that, presumably, she doesn't support the government's subsidizing artists on the grounds R provides. It's possible that she could support government subsidy of artists on other grounds, but also maybe not -- we just don't know.

D is incorrect because, as described above, S doesn't use R's premises -- she attacks one of them. So D is not a correct description of what R's statement does.

Hope that helps and isn't too technical. That's how I analyzed it when I did it! Let me know if anything I wrote was unclear or anything.

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby wjun15 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:36 pm

emseeaych wrote:
wjun15 wrote:can someone explain PT58 #12 on the second LR section?

What is the implicit assumption? and why is D and C wrong?


I will call the two people in the conversation S and R. The implicit assumption is that "best work" (abbrev: BW) and "work that gains widespread popular acclaim" (WPA) are mutually exclusive categories, so that if a piece is WPA, it is not BW. In symbols: WPA --> ~BW. If L is the abbreviation for "make a living", you can actually formalize S's premises as follows: L --> WPA --> ~BW. The contrapositive of that is BW --> ~WPA --> ~L. In words, if an artist makes a living from his or her work, he or she is producing works that get popular acclaim, and therefore he or she is not producing his or her best work; conversely, if an artist produces his or her best work, she or he won't be producing works that get popular acclaim, and therefore he or she won't be able to make a living. But presumably we want artists to produce their best work (another implicit assumption in S's argument), which is why, S concludes, government should subsidize artists.

WPA --> ~BW is an implicit assumption because S never states it, but it must be true if S's argument is to hold. Try assuming that it's not true and see if S's argument still works! In fact that's exactly what R's response does -- claims that it's not true -- but it's worded in a confusing way, so it's easy to miss that unless you read it closely. One tip: Note that the word "must" in R's response introduces the necessary condition of the assumption, ~BW.

C is incorrect because R doesn't necessarily accept S's conclusion. It's unclear. She could, or she could not. She's simply disputing that Sahira's premises are correct. Because of that, presumably, she doesn't support the government's subsidizing artists on the grounds R provides. It's possible that she could support government subsidy of artists on other grounds, but also maybe not -- we just don't know.

D is incorrect because, as described above, S doesn't use R's premises -- she attacks one of them. So D is not a correct description of what R's statement does.

Hope that helps and isn't too technical. That's how I analyzed it when I did it! Let me know if anything I wrote was unclear or anything.


great explanation! thanks a lot. i still dont really understand why its implicit assumption if he says "instead of their best work".

emseeaych
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby emseeaych » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:03 pm

wjun15 wrote:also, a questions on section 2 (LR) #11

when you say there is a causal relation between, lets say having a good teacher and getting good grades, does that mean everytime you have a good teacher you should have good grades?

or is possible for you to have a good teacher and not have good grades and still be considered causal?

i might be confusing correlation and causation


This is the question about schizophrenia? In analyzing this question, it might be helpful to you to think of correlation and causation as two ends of a spectrum, rather than black-and-white properties. This question tells you that there's a correlation between damage to chromosome 6 (DC6) and schizophrenia (SCH). It then tells you that sometimes you have DC6 without SCH, and sometimes you have SCH without DC6. But there are still times when you have both DC6 and SCH. So the correlation is not perfect.

The conclusion of the argument is that there is no causal connection between DC6 and SCH, but that's not warranted based on the information given. For example, maybe DC6 causes SCH only if you have some additional factor present -- a high concentration of aluminum in your bloodstream, for example. Maybe SCH can be caused by DC6 or damage to chromosome 5, so sometimes it's one and sometimes the other. Those are both plausible scenarios that are compatible with the information given and could explain why sometimes you have DC6 without SCH and vice-versa.

The question asks for a flaw in the argument (note: a flaw, not the flaw; there's more than one). Choice A describes a flaw: a possible scenario where DC6 sometimes leads to SCH, but not always.

None of the others describe a flaw -- B is an incorrect description of the stimulus (it would be closer to the truth, though still strictly speaking inaccurate, to say that the conclusion assumes that SCH is not caused solely by chromosomal damage); C is kind of irrelevant and too strong a claim (it's possible that the sample population is unrepresentative, but we have no way to tell, and C claims that it is unrepresentative); D is an incorrect description; and E is actually the opposite of what it the conclusion assumes.

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby wjun15 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:42 am

okay thanks ^ so what youre saying is: even though DC6 causes SCH, that doesn't mean that everytime you have DC6 you should have SCH

right?

because that would be conditional reasoning?

emseeaych
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby emseeaych » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:15 pm

wjun15 wrote:okay thanks ^ so what youre saying is: even though DC6 causes SCH, that doesn't mean that everytime you have DC6 you should have SCH

right?

because that would be conditional reasoning?


Yeah, basically. Conditional reasoning would mean perfect causality, so that every time you have DC6, you have SCH (DC6 --> SCH). The info provided in the stimulus is that sometimes you have SCH without DC6, which means that the causality isn't perfect. Using that information, the stimulus erroneously concludes that DC6 never causes SCH. The question then asks you to identify a flaw in the argument, and the flaw is basically that the premises aren't enough to justify such a strong conclusion. Just because sometimes DC6 doesn't cause SCH, that doesn't mean that it never causes SCH. Does that make sense?

wjun15
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: 2 LR questions from PT58

Postby wjun15 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:30 pm

yes. thank you!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ari1, BobBoblaw and 6 guests