SuperPrep Test A, Section 4, LR, #14 Answer Choice C

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

SuperPrep Test A, Section 4, LR, #14 Answer Choice C

Postby secretad » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:38 am

I got this question right, but I was reviewing it and all of the other answer choices.

I came across the explanation as to why C is wrong. When I gave the answer choice consideration, I determined that the conclusion was validly drawn, whereas the explanation from this book says it is not so.

(C) Since a large percentage of professional persons have changed their careers, and since career changes require new training, all professional persons who have changed their careers required new training.

So, we have

Premise 1) Some professional persons have changed their careers. [ PP some CC ]

Premise 2) Career changes require new training. [ CC ---> NT ]

Linkage of the two premises is as follows: [ PP some CC ---> NT ]

Conclusion: All professional persons who have changed their careers required new training. [ PP that did CC ---> NT ]

How is this invalid? The explanation claims that it is a temporal issue with relevance on the issue of what is the case in the present and what is the case with all professional persons that changed their careers, such as in the past.

However, I am taking the premise for what it says at face value, which is if you change careers, then you require new training.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: SuperPrep Test A, Section 4, LR, #14 Answer Choice C

Postby suspicious android » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:03 pm

secretad wrote:
How is this invalid? The explanation claims that it is a temporal issue with relevance on the issue of what is the case in the present and what is the case with all professional persons that changed their careers, such as in the past.

However, I am taking the premise for what it says at face value, which is if you change careers, then you require new training.


That "temporal issue" is true in the present is not necessarily true in the past. So we must accept that "career changes require new training" now, it is not necessarily true that career changes have always require new training. Thus, some professionals who have changed their careers might not have gotten new training.

Sometimes, I think the LSAC explanations go out of their way to be obnoxiously formal and inaccessible.

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: SuperPrep Test A, Section 4, LR, #14 Answer Choice C

Postby secretad » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:04 pm

suspicious android wrote:
That "temporal issue" is true in the present is not necessarily true in the past. So we must accept that "career changes require new training" now, it is not necessarily true that career changes have always require new training. Thus, some professionals who have changed their careers might not have gotten new training.


Questions:

1) If the conclusion stated "all career changes from future professional persons will require new training," that would also be an invalid conclusion from the premise concerning only the premise correct?

2) Would the argument be any different if the statement "Career changes require new training" instead said, "All career changes require new training"?

I do not believe that the argument would be valid even if it did state that. Is there even a functional difference between those two statements. Even though the first statement does not include all, it is implied is it not?

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: SuperPrep Test A, Section 4, LR, #14 Answer Choice C

Postby suspicious android » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:07 pm

secretad wrote:2) Would the argument be any different if the statement "Career changes require new training" instead said, "All career changes require new training"?

I do not believe that the argument would be valid even if it did state that. Is there even a functional difference between those two statements. Even though the first statement does not include all, it is implied is it not?


Agreed on #1, but the second question is more interesting. I guess since the verb "require" is being used in the present tense it's understood that the career changes being restricted by that verb are present ones. I also want to say that "all career changes require new training" would have the same meaning. But what would change the meaning? Maybe move the modifier: "Career changes always require new training." I think that would do it. How about changing the modifier but keeping it attached to career changes: "Any career change requires new training." I think that would also make the argument valid, because instead of referring to the set of career changes that have happened, "any" refers to uh... any career change, hypothetical, or future. Hmm.. This might be arguable, but I think I'm convinced

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: SuperPrep Test A, Section 4, LR, #14 Answer Choice C

Postby secretad » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:16 pm

suspicious android wrote:
secretad wrote:2) Would the argument be any different if the statement "Career changes require new training" instead said, "All career changes require new training"?

I do not believe that the argument would be valid even if it did state that. Is there even a functional difference between those two statements. Even though the first statement does not include all, it is implied is it not?


Agreed on #1, but the second question is more interesting. I guess since the verb "require" is being used in the present tense it's understood that the career changes being restricted by that verb are present ones. I also want to say that "all career changes require new training" would have the same meaning. But what would change the meaning? Maybe move the modifier: "Career changes always require new training." I think that would do it. How about changing the modifier but keeping it attached to career changes: "Any career change requires new training." I think that would also make the argument valid, because instead of referring to the set of career changes that have happened, "any" refers to uh... any career change, hypothetical, or future. Hmm.. This might be arguable, but I think I'm convinced


I am in agreement with most of your post here.

My disagreement is in the fact that "Any career change requires new training" is some how different than "Career change requires new training." The former is simply a superflous way of saying the same thing, is it not? The fact that any career change requires new training does not seem to account for the past.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: SuperPrep Test A, Section 4, LR, #14 Answer Choice C

Postby suspicious android » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:34 pm

secretad wrote:My disagreement is in the fact that "Any career change requires new training" is some how different than "Career change requires new training." The former is simply a superflous way of saying the same thing, is it not? The fact that any career change requires new training does not seem to account for the past.


Career changes require training.
All career changes require training.
Any career change requires training.

The first two are identical in meaning, I believe. The last one is different. For example:

A) All moon-walkers are American.
B) Any moon-walker is American.

The first suggests that everyone who is in the set "moon-walkers" is American. That's a descriptive assertion, about what is true, but could change tomorrow if a Russian walks on the moon. The second statement is prescriptive, it suggests that by definition the set "moon-walkers" is within the set "American" and if a Russian walks on the moon then that Russian is also American.

There is a name for this idea but I can't remember it anymore, and I may be wrong on this, but I would have to be convinced. Maybe one of the other semantics nerds wander by.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bcapace, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests