PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

gambelda
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:44 am

PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby gambelda » Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:14 pm

Missing 5 to 6 in each LR section in my 2 most recent PT's which usually indicates a lack of understanding of the question types. However, I think I'm just overthinking every single question and as a result forcing myself out of answers that are obvious. In last nights PT I missed 4 questions that I had narrowed down to 2 AC's and all of the questions I chose the wrong one.

I need help with this one (am I overthinking again?):

Stimulus: About human actions having justifications and explanations and the two usually don't coexist but if justification forms an essential part of explanation, the action is rational.

I need help with an explanation of why (E) is correct.

Also, I cannot for the life of me determine why (C) is incorrect. If "many psychologists believe that even when there is a justification for an action, that justification often forms NO part of that explanation"....then how can it be incorrect that "Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation"?

If many psychologists believe it can form NO part, then thatimplies they also believe it can't form an ESSENTIAL part. Since to form an essential part, it would have to form at least some part (aka not zero)

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby ScottRiqui » Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:03 pm

gambelda wrote:Also, I cannot for the life of me determine why (C) is incorrect. If "many psychologists believe that even when there is a justification for an action, that justification often forms NO part of that explanation"....then how can it be incorrect that "Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation"?

If many psychologists believe it can form NO part, then thatimplies they also believe it can't form an ESSENTIAL part. Since to form an essential part, it would have to form at least some part (aka not zero)


It's the "often forms" in the question and the "never forms" part of the answer (C) that are tripping you up. Just because there are many psychologists that believe that the justification often forms no part of the explanation, that doesn't mean that there's even a single psychologist that believes that the justification NEVER forms an essential part.

Here's a similar construction that's a little more "real world":

"Many doctors believe that in some cases, diabetic patients have no family history of diabetes".

That doesn't mean that there's necessarily even one single doctor that believes that NO diabetic patient EVER has a family history of diabetes.

gambelda
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:44 am

Re: PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby gambelda » Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:18 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:
gambelda wrote:Also, I cannot for the life of me determine why (C) is incorrect. If "many psychologists believe that even when there is a justification for an action, that justification often forms NO part of that explanation"....then how can it be incorrect that "Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation"?

If many psychologists believe it can form NO part, then thatimplies they also believe it can't form an ESSENTIAL part. Since to form an essential part, it would have to form at least some part (aka not zero)


It's the "often forms" in the question and the "never forms" part of the answer (C) that are tripping you up. Just because there are many psychologists that believe that the justification often forms no part of the explanation, that doesn't mean that there's even a single psychologist that believes that the justification NEVER forms an essential part.

Here's a similar construction that's a little more "real world":

"Many doctors believe that in some cases, diabetic patients have no family history of diabetes".

That doesn't mean that there's necessarily even one single doctor that believes that NO diabetic patient EVER has a family history of diabetes.


I must be stupid because I still don't understand. Let me paraphrase what I think the stimulus is saying and you can tell me if I am misinterpreting it.

I read the stimulus as....Many psychologists believe that there are occasions where justifications do not contribute at all to an explanation of an action. Thus the AC that says "Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation" is in fact true because if there are occasions where a justification does not contribute at all, then in those occasions, the justifications cannot form essential parts of the explanations.

Have I bent the argument and AC in some way that makes my thought process invalid? I feel like I'm confused on which word is stressed as the important one.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby ScottRiqui » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:07 pm

gambelda wrote:[

I read the stimulus as....Many psychologists believe that there are occasions where justifications do not contribute at all to an explanation of an action. Thus the AC that says "Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation" is in fact true because if there are occasions where a justification does not contribute at all, then in those occasions, the justifications cannot form essential parts of the explanations.

Have I bent the argument and AC in some way that makes my thought process invalid? I feel like I'm confused on which word is stressed as the important one.


I think you're misunderstanding the argument. Just because many psychologists believe there are SOME occasions where justifications do not contribute at all, that doesn't mean that there are any psychologists who believe that justifications NEVER contribute to an explanation (which is what answer (C) is asserting.)

For (C) to be true, you'd essentially have to find a psychologist who says "In my entire career, I've never seen or heard of a case where justification forms any part of the explanation, and frankly, I don't believe that any such cases exist."

You can't get (C) from the problem statement, because all the statement says is that many believe that there are (some) occasions where justification forms no part. Any one of the psychologists may admit that there are other occasions where justification DOES form a part of the explanation.

gambelda
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:44 am

Re: PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby gambelda » Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:08 pm

oooooooooh! Now I see where I was misunderstanding. Thanks for that second explanation. It helped a lot.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby JazzOne » Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:11 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:
gambelda wrote:[

I read the stimulus as....Many psychologists believe that there are occasions where justifications do not contribute at all to an explanation of an action. Thus the AC that says "Some psychologists believe that the justification for an action never forms an essential part of its explanation" is in fact true because if there are occasions where a justification does not contribute at all, then in those occasions, the justifications cannot form essential parts of the explanations.

Have I bent the argument and AC in some way that makes my thought process invalid? I feel like I'm confused on which word is stressed as the important one.


I think you're misunderstanding the argument. Just because many psychologists believe there are SOME occasions where justifications do not contribute at all, that doesn't mean that there are any psychologists who believe that justifications NEVER contribute to an explanation (which is what answer (C) is asserting.)

For (C) to be true, you'd essentially have to find a psychologist who says "In my entire career, I've never seen or heard of a case where justification forms any part of the explanation, and frankly, I don't believe that any such cases exist."

You can't get (C) from the problem statement, because all the statement says is that many believe that there are (some) occasions where justification forms no part. Any one of the psychologists may admit that there are other occasions where justification DOES form a part of the explanation.

You've made some pretty helpful posts for a noob. What's your story? Applying this cycle?

Normally, I would just search your posts, but the mods have disabled many useful features this morning.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby ScottRiqui » Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:34 pm

JazzOne wrote:You've made some pretty helpful posts for a noob. What's your story? Applying this cycle?

Normally, I would just search your posts, but the mods have disabled many useful features this morning.


Thanks for the kind words. You've been very helpful in the threads I've started (I'm the career Naval officer who's looking at options when my 20 years are up in 2014.)

Realistically, I shouldn't even be hanging out here since I'm so far away from applying, but there are some great folks here, and I'm learning a lot. I just try to help out in the logic posts because although I've never had a formal logic course, I've been exposed to a lot of it between my computer science, math and electronic circuits courses.

Scott

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: PT 21. LR Sec. 3 #24

Postby JazzOne » Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:39 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:
JazzOne wrote:You've made some pretty helpful posts for a noob. What's your story? Applying this cycle?

Normally, I would just search your posts, but the mods have disabled many useful features this morning.


Thanks for the kind words. You've been very helpful in the threads I've started (I'm the career Naval officer who's looking at options when my 20 years are up in 2014.)

Realistically, I shouldn't even be hanging out here since I'm so far away from applying, but there are some great folks here, and I'm learning a lot. I just try to help out in the logic posts because although I've never had a formal logic course, I've been exposed to a lot of it between my computer science, math and electronic circuits courses.

Scott

OK, I remember your thread now. Good luck with your apps.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, BobBoblaw, MSNbot Media, sodomojo and 8 guests