PT54, S2, Q18

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

PT54, S2, Q18

Postby MissLucky » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:00 pm

This is so weird. I got this correct when I took this exam this morning, but (C) is really not looking good to me now.

Ev1: Take SP on an issue --> likely to misinterpret or ignore additional evidence that conflicts with one's stand
Ev2: If understand an issue fully --> consider such evidence impartially
NOT consider evidence impartially --> NOT understand an issue fully
Conclusion: Take SP on an issue --> Have already considered all important evidence conflicting with that position
NOT consider all imp evidence conflicting with position --> NOT take SP on an issue



(C) says: NOT understand an issue fully --> NOT take SP on issue....the contrapositive of which is:
Take SP on issue --> understand issue fully

I feel like (C) has mistakenly reversed the contrapositive of Ev2 (has done this: NOT understand an issue fully --> NOT consider evidence impartially --> NOT take SP on an issue)...but helllooo, 'NOT understand an issue fully' is merely a necessary result clause here..that's all...we cannot say anything about what it triggers (but C does precisely that!)


If I look at the contrapositive to (C), I see how it can make sense: Take SP on issue --> understand issue fully --> consider such evidence impartially. Is that why this answer is correct?

wth, i'm so confused...it seemed crystle clear this morning, but now, I can't imagine arriving at answer choice (C). there is no way I could have prephrased this that's for sure.

any insight here (esp my concerns that I highlighted in dark blue above) would be really appreciated :) thanks!

EDIT: upon looking at it again, I think I realized how I arrived at it this morning. The contrapositive of the conclusion: NOT consider all imp evidence conflicting with position --> NOT understand an issue fully --> NOT take SP on an issue

but, this begs the question: how do we know that "NOT consider all imp evidence conflicting with position" = "NOT consider additional conflicting evidence impartially" ? or am i being too nitpicky...although there is a diffference btwn just considering the evid conflicting and doing so impartially. thoughts?

EDIT #2: what I mentioned in "EDIT" cannot be correct because once again, (C) tries to use a necessary result as its sufficient clause "If one does NOT understand an issue fully --> one should NOT take a SP on the issue"...but all we know (as diagrammed above) is that (C)'s sufficient clause is merely a necessary clause for NOT considering all imp evidence conflicting with the position...it does not by any means trigger it, as (C) seems to be wanting. So, back to square 1.

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: PT54, S2, Q18

Postby JJDancer » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:30 pm

C is not a mistaken reversal because its not a clear conditional. It's a principle that
NOT understand issue fully --> avoid taking strong position

basically taking a strong position makes you likely to ignore/misinterpret which = not considering evidence impartially.
not consider impartially --> not understand issue fully.
CONCL: not consider evidence impartially --> not SP

I don't know if that helps..




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Baidu [Spider], cianchetta0, Instrumental and 3 guests