PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

lsatextreme
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am

PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby lsatextreme » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:50 pm

For the life of me, I cannot understand the rationale for the correct answers to either to these.

Q23 (libel), I must not be understanding the stimulus at all bc the correct answer was among the first I eliminated bc I thought it had no relevance

Q20 (jarrett criticizing ostertag's work), I see how A is correct but I can't seem to see how D is wrong...

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:05 pm

The answer is saying that in order for to differentiate one public figure as good, there have to be others which are designated as bad. If nothing negative is said about any of them, then they all have the same reputation.

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

Re: PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby JJDancer » Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:22 pm

#20) Criticize --> -harm AND hopeBenefitOther
If it harms OR don't do it in hope or expectation of benefitting other --> shouldn't criticize

CONCL: J shouldn't have criticized. since blahblah(doesn't matter) BENEFITTED NO ONE.

Ok - right off the bat I think, it didn't say criticism had to benefit, only that the criticizer had to hope or expect that someone else would..

So we need something that gets rid of this doubt so that the application (conclusion) can be JUSTIFIED (proven).
If J knew that no one would benefit then he could not hope or expect anyone to..so he should not have criticized.

D is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if J benefits (or hopes to). AS LONG AS HE HOPES/can reasosnably expect SOMEONE(ANYONE) else to.

lsatextreme
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am

Re: PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby lsatextreme » Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:18 pm

dhrizek wrote:The answer is saying that in order for to differentiate one public figure as good, there have to be others which are designated as bad. If nothing negative is said about any of them, then they all have the same reputation.


could you happen to explain what the stimulus means? I'm still somehow having a disconnect between what the stimulus is saying and how E (and your explanation) would justify it. To me, E is still something that came from left field so I think I'm just not understanding what the stimulus is saying

I think I understood 20, thank you!

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:51 pm

S:

If you have strong laws against libel no public figure has a good reputation because nobody makes any statements which damage the reputation of public figures.

This implies that nobody in such a society has either a good reputation or a bad reputation.

The stimulus is a pretty weird argument, and E lets it make sense.

lsatextreme
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am

Re: PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby lsatextreme » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:27 pm

dhrizek wrote:This implies that nobody in such a society has either a good reputation or a bad reputation.


I'm really sorry and thank you for your explanations, but I still can't seem to grasp how the stimulus implies this? For some reason I keep thinking of it saying that because no one will say anything bad about public figures, that essentially makes it easy for public figures to abuse the "system" by not having to keep a good reputation...

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby Blumpbeef » Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:39 am

I assumed that the actions of the public figures remain constant, and the only thing that changes is the criticism they receive. It is saying that a public figure who would otherwise have a good reputation now has a neutral reputation because there is nobody with a bad reputation to compare him against.

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

Re: PT 60, LR1, Q23 and LR2, Q20

Postby tomwatts » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:57 am

Just to put the same thing in different words:

The argument concludes that libel laws can prevent anyone from having a good reputation. The evidence is that libel laws prevent people from saying anything bad about public figures. The right answer needs to say that no one saying anything bad about public figures leads to no one having a good reputation.

Now, the contrapositive of E is that if no other public figures have bad reputations, then public figures cannot have good reputations. If libel laws result in no one saying anything bad about public figures, and if that in turn results in no public figures having bad reputations, then no public figures will have good reputations (according to this conditional). I think it's this bit that you're having trouble with: libel laws result in no one saying anything bad about public figures, so no public figures have bad reputations. Well, think about what a reputation is. A dictionary gives this: "The estimation in which a person or thing is held, esp. by the community or the public generally." Where does this come from? In most circumstances for a public figure, it comes from what people say about you. So if no one says anything bad, then you can't get a bad reputation.

Put another way, consider the possibility that a good reputation is only relative: a public figure has a good reputation because his or her reputation is better than someone else’s. If no one else lies or cheats or steals, then there is nothing particularly meritorious about not lying, cheating, or stealing, and thus no one will acquire a reputation for honesty and fair play.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests