PT 60 LR section 3, #16

saveferris
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:30 pm

PT 60 LR section 3, #16

Postby saveferris » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:39 am

Stimulus discusses wildlife experts manipulating the environment to make it easier for endangered species to survive but this makes it harder for nonendangered species to survive.

I originally thought E was a good criticism of the argument, but it didn't seem like a "legit" fallacy to me. I ended up going with C. Can someone pls explain why E is the right answer?

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

Re: PT 60 LR section 3, #16

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:22 pm

Keep in mind that when the question stem asks you to identify a criticism of the argument, the answer choice could be very abstract and sound like one of those common fallacies your thinking about. But the answer choice will also frequently say "takes for granted that ..." or "fails to consider ..."

Both of those phrases introduce the fallacy that the argument rests on an assumption. The correct answer could simply point out that assumption with "takes for granted that..." or could attack the assumption by addressing what the argument "fails to consider ..."

Does that help? Don't lock yourself into looking for one of those common abstract fallacies.

Also, if you want to see a discussion of the assumption underlying the argument, check out one of my colleague's explanations to this question:

http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/pt-60-s ... t1840.html

Good luck, and let me know if you have any other questions.

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12383
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: PT 60 LR section 3, #16

Postby gdane » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:21 pm

Matt,

I dont want to start another thread for this question so Im hoping you can explain it to me here.

PT 60, LR 2, Q 8.

I chose A. Why is this incorrect?

Thank you!

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

Re: PT 60 LR section 3, #16

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:44 pm

Sure, happy to help.

The argument informs us that the theater often produces plays by critically acclaimed playwrights. It also tells us that critical acclaim is a main factor considered in determining which plays to produce.

The evidence does establish that critical acclaim is important but does not go as far as the conclusion that it is guaranteed. No where does the argument state that critical acclaim is a required condition of the play the theater produces.

Going into the answers, I would have in my head the argument treats something that is possible as though it were inevitable. Answer choice (C) doesn't state this exactly, but gets at the same problem.

(A) is close, but it's not that the relationship is reversed, but rather that the relationship is taken too far.
(B) is not close, since the argument is not related to causation.
(D) is not true. There is no reason to believe the evidence is unreliable.
(E) also plays off of causation. There is no causality implied in this argument. So this answer choice can be eliminated.

Does that help clear this one up?

saveferris
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:30 pm

Re: PT 60 LR section 3, #16

Postby saveferris » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:44 pm

Thank you Matt. That helps a lot!

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12383
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: PT 60 LR section 3, #16

Postby gdane » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:49 pm

Thank you Matt. I really appreciate it.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dontsaywhatyoumean, potatocowpower and 1 guest