Principle Question

LS20114ME
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:09 am

Principle Question

Postby LS20114ME » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:10 pm

I am slightly confused as to what the following question stem is asking:

"The argumentation conforms most closely to which of the following" OR
"The reasoning above conforms most closely to which of the following"

Is this stem asking for an AC that will strengthen the reasoning in the stimulus or is it asking for what AC must be true given the stimulus?

Thanks!

Crimson-LSAT-Prep
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:39 pm

Re: Principle Question

Postby Crimson-LSAT-Prep » Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:25 pm

It depends...
Last edited by Crimson-LSAT-Prep on Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

LS20114ME
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:09 am

Re: Principle Question

Postby LS20114ME » Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:02 am

Thanks for replying Crimson!

The question I was specifically confused on was from PT 44 / Section 4 / Question 4 "Statistics indicating..."

I interpreted this as a Principle - Strengthen question and narrowed the AC's down to A (correct answer) and E but ended up taking E. If this is infact a Strengthen question then I don't understand why E is wrong.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Principle Question

Postby 2014 » Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:02 am

Sounds to me like a MBT question. It's asking which one of the following is supported given what you have read in the stimulus.

A strengthen would not be which is supported BY the stimulus rather which one SUPPORTS the stimulus.

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

Re: Principle Question

Postby tomwatts » Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:08 pm

In PR terminology, we call this a "Principle-Match" question, which has two forms: Principle-ID and Principle Apply. The stems that you're describing sound like Principle-ID. It's asking you to identify a principle that is at work in the argument ("stimulus"). The right answer will be a generalization of which the situation presented above will be a specific case. This differs from an Inference question ("must be true") in that the language strength will be stronger than the situation itself justifies. Thus, the right answer could be that something tends to occur, when the situation was just one example of that thing occurring.

What's funny is that there are some blurry lines involved here, and you happened to pick out one that's particularly blurry. The argument actually has a conclusion ("Hence"), and if you're looking for a principle of which this argument is a specific case, there's essentially no difference between finding that and finding a principle that would strengthen the argument (which is normally indicated by the words "principle" and "justify" rather than "conform"). I would point to the fact that E has nothing to do with the premise as what makes it wrong; you can't describe the whole "better awareness" thing as a specific example of radical solutions causing more harm than good, but you can point to it as a specific example of "better cognizance." The right answer should encompass the whole argument on a Principle-Match and should link premise to conclusion in Principle-Strengthen; A does both, and E does neither.

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Principle Question

Postby AverageTutoring » Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:24 pm

tomwatts wrote:In PR terminology, we call this a "Principle-Match" question, which has two forms: Principle-ID and Principle Apply. The stems that you're describing sound like Principle-ID. It's asking you to identify a principle that is at work in the argument ("stimulus"). The right answer will be a generalization of which the situation presented above will be a specific case. This differs from an Inference question ("must be true") in that the language strength will be stronger than the situation itself justifies. Thus, the right answer could be that something tends to occur, when the situation was just one example of that thing occurring.

What's funny is that there are some blurry lines involved here, and you happened to pick out one that's particularly blurry. The argument actually has a conclusion ("Hence"), and if you're looking for a principle of which this argument is a specific case, there's essentially no difference between finding that and finding a principle that would strengthen the argument (which is normally indicated by the words "principle" and "justify" rather than "conform"). I would point to the fact that E has nothing to do with the premise as what makes it wrong; you can't describe the whole "better awareness" thing as a specific example of radical solutions causing more harm than good, but you can point to it as a specific example of "better cognizance." The right answer should encompass the whole argument on a Principle-Match and should link premise to conclusion in Principle-Strengthen; A does both, and E does neither.


Is it bad that I went cross-eyed trying to interpret what you just wrote Tom? +1 though :P

I'll offer an alternative, less intelligent, explanation.

We need to consider what the conclusion is based on. What is the reasoning behind the argument! Well, it says we should dismiss/not consider (or at least be very sceptical of) radical proposals based on new statistical data. Why? Because new stats dont necessarily indicate increased frequency, just increased observation of a particular thing/event.

So the principle here is that simply because we are more aware of an event doesn’t mean we should adopt radical proposals. Sound good? Clearly answer choice A picks up on this.

Now you are correct in saying that E would strengthen the proposal! I mean, if radical solutions can cause more harm then good, we should be wary of adopting radical proposals. Absolutely agree. But this doesnt follow the reasoning of the argument. The argument doesnt say that radical proposals are bad hence we should not adopt radical proposals. It says that radical proposals based on new stats are bad/should be looked at carefully.

In this particular instance we are looking for the reasoning behind the argument and trying to bridge the gap, as Tom definitely said much better then I :P




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dj9i27, Greenteachurro, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests