Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby youknowryan » Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:52 pm

...Or so I think. Feel free to correct me.

It from PT 34, S2, #10. Here's a rough paraphrase, look at the test to see the actual text:

Premise I: a school must include special education kids to avoid a charter violation.
Premise II: there are no enrolled kids with learning disabilities.
Conclusion: the school is currently in violation of its charter.

Is not the charter violation new information?

PowerScore says the the credited answer will ALWAYS have new information introduced in the conclusion (i.e the current charter violation). This one does not do that. The sufficient assumption involves only the premises. Am I wrong or did Powerscore make an absolute rule that is not?

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby EarlCat » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:10 pm

The answer will always have new information. It's basically an additional premise that makes the conclusion work.

Here the new information in D (that the ONLY kids with special education needs are students with learning disabilities) is new information that makes the conclusion work.

User avatar
Eichörnchen
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:51 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby Eichörnchen » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:35 pm

youknowryan wrote:...Or so I think. Feel free to correct me.

It from PT 34, S2, #10. Here's a rough paraphrase, look at the test to see the actual text:

Premise I: a school must include special education kids to avoid a charter violation.
Premise II: there are no enrolled kids with learning disabilities.
Conclusion: the school is currently in violation of its charter.

Is not the charter violation new information?

PowerScore says the the credited answer will ALWAYS have new information introduced in the conclusion (i.e the current charter violation). This one does not do that. The sufficient assumption involves only the premises. Am I wrong or did Powerscore make an absolute rule that is not?


The charter says that the student body must include some students with special educational needs and no students with learning disabilities are enrolled, thus the school is in violation of the charter. For the conclusion to be accurate, it has to be true that every special education student is a student with learning disabilities (D), because if this weren’t true, then the school wouldn’t be violating the charter, because they may have other sorts of special education students, such as those with physical disabilities. The fact that special education needs = student with learning disabilities is not present in the stim, but is present in TCR.

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby youknowryan » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:26 pm

Eichörnchen wrote:
youknowryan wrote:...Or so I think. Feel free to correct me.

It from PT 34, S2, #10. Here's a rough paraphrase, look at the test to see the actual text:

Premise I: a school must include special education kids to avoid a charter violation.
Premise II: there are no enrolled kids with learning disabilities.
Conclusion: the school is currently in violation of its charter.

Is not the charter violation new information?

PowerScore says the the credited answer will ALWAYS have new information introduced in the conclusion (i.e the current charter violation). This one does not do that. The sufficient assumption involves only the premises. Am I wrong or did Powerscore make an absolute rule that is not?


The charter says that the student body must include some students with special educational needs and no students with learning disabilities are enrolled, thus the school is in violation of the charter. For the conclusion to be accurate, it has to be true that every special education student is a student with learning disabilities (D), because if this weren’t true, then the school wouldn’t be violating the charter, because they may have other sorts of special education students, such as those with physical disabilities. The fact that special education needs = student with learning disabilities is not present in the stim, but is present in TCR.


I hear you. Where I'm falling down is that PowerScore says that any new info in the conclusion will be in the answer. Ex:

premise: a -> b
conclusion: a -> c

the answer will then have C in it somewhere wither directly worded the same way or using a synonym of C. This question seems to violate that. That make sense?

User avatar
Eichörnchen
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:51 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby Eichörnchen » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:38 pm

youknowryan wrote:
Eichörnchen wrote:
youknowryan wrote:...Or so I think. Feel free to correct me.

It from PT 34, S2, #10. Here's a rough paraphrase, look at the test to see the actual text:

Premise I: a school must include special education kids to avoid a charter violation.
Premise II: there are no enrolled kids with learning disabilities.
Conclusion: the school is currently in violation of its charter.

Is not the charter violation new information?

PowerScore says the the credited answer will ALWAYS have new information introduced in the conclusion (i.e the current charter violation). This one does not do that. The sufficient assumption involves only the premises. Am I wrong or did Powerscore make an absolute rule that is not?


The charter says that the student body must include some students with special educational needs and no students with learning disabilities are enrolled, thus the school is in violation of the charter. For the conclusion to be accurate, it has to be true that every special education student is a student with learning disabilities (D), because if this weren’t true, then the school wouldn’t be violating the charter, because they may have other sorts of special education students, such as those with physical disabilities. The fact that special education needs = student with learning disabilities is not present in the stim, but is present in TCR.


I hear you. Where I'm falling down is that PowerScore says that any new info in the conclusion will be in the answer. Ex:

premise: a -> b
conclusion: a -> c

the answer will then have C in it somewhere wither directly worded the same way or using a synonym of C. This question seems to violate that. That make sense?

I think you're getting tripped up by the fact that the "new info" is using the same terminology as what appears in the stimulus. Stripped down, this arg basically says "1. The school must have SN kids. 2. There are no LD kids 3. Therefore, the school is violating what it must have (or, violating the requirement for SN kids). This conclusion is bringing in the idea that a lack of LD means a lack of SN. Based off of the given premises, this is not a valid conclusion. The addition of the fact that if there are SN, there are LD makes it valid because then we know ~LD -> ~SN. Does that help at all?

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby Jeffort » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:50 pm

youknowryan wrote:
Eichörnchen wrote:
youknowryan wrote:...Or so I think. Feel free to correct me.

It from PT 34, S2, #10. Here's a rough paraphrase, look at the test to see the actual text:

Premise I: a school must include special education kids to avoid a charter violation.
Premise II: there are no enrolled kids with learning disabilities.
Conclusion: the school is currently in violation of its charter.

Is not the charter violation new information?

PowerScore says the the credited answer will ALWAYS have new information introduced in the conclusion (i.e the current charter violation). This one does not do that. The sufficient assumption involves only the premises. Am I wrong or did Powerscore make an absolute rule that is not?


The charter says that the student body must include some students with special educational needs and no students with learning disabilities are enrolled, thus the school is in violation of the charter. For the conclusion to be accurate, it has to be true that every special education student is a student with learning disabilities (D), because if this weren’t true, then the school wouldn’t be violating the charter, because they may have other sorts of special education students, such as those with physical disabilities. The fact that special education needs = student with learning disabilities is not present in the stim, but is present in TCR.


I hear you. Where I'm falling down is that PowerScore says that any new info in the conclusion will be in the answer. Ex:

premise: a -> b
conclusion: a -> c

the answer will then have C in it somewhere wither directly worded the same way or using a synonym of C. This question seems to violate that. That make sense?


Charter violation is an element included in a premise, so it is not a new element brought into the argument only in the conclusion.

Try to differentiate between 'new information' and 'new element/topic/subject/concept/idea'. The conclusion of the argument makes an assertion about a topic that was already part of the argument, hence it is not a new element. I guess you can say it is 'new information' since the conclusion is trying to persuade you that the school is in violation of the charter and the premises said nothing about being in violation. However, the conclusion, unless it is a circular argument, is always going to assert something new/different information than what was stated in the premises.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby EarlCat » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:06 pm

Eichörnchen wrote:For the conclusion to be accurate, it has to be true that every special education student is a student with learning disabilities (D), because if this weren’t true, then the school wouldn’t be violating the charter, because they may have other sorts of special education students, such as those with physical disabilities.

You are analyzing this as if it were a necessary assumption question.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby EarlCat » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:12 pm

youknowryan wrote:I hear you. Where I'm falling down is that PowerScore says that any new info in the conclusion will be in the answer. Ex:

premise: a -> b
conclusion: a -> c

the answer will then have C in it somewhere wither directly worded the same way or using a synonym of C. This question seems to violate that. That make sense?

Oh NOW I see what you were asking about.

A sufficient assumption does NOT have to have an element of the conclusion in it to be correct. It merely needs to bridge the logical gap.

Premise: a --> b
Premise: c --> d
Conclusion: a --> d
Sufficient Assumption: b --> c


Now, whether PowerScore's model holds for this problem depends on how you diagram it. If you consider every statement as a conditional, it might look like this:

Premise: Charter --> SepcialEd
Conclusion: ~LearningDisabilities --> ~Charter (contra: Charter --> LearningDisabilities)
TCR: SpecialEd --> LearningDisabilities

But if you're more precise about what statements are themselves conditional and what statements aren't, (as well as what statements are premises and conclusions) you might diagram like this:

Premise: Charter --> SpecialEd
Premise: ~LearningDisabilities
Conclusion: --> ~Charter
TCR: SpecialEd --> LearningDisabilities

In that case, you don't see any of the elements of the literal conclusion in the answer.

User avatar
Eichörnchen
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:51 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby Eichörnchen » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:30 pm

EarlCat wrote:
Eichörnchen wrote:For the conclusion to be accurate, it has to be true that every special education student is a student with learning disabilities (D), because if this weren’t true, then the school wouldn’t be violating the charter, because they may have other sorts of special education students, such as those with physical disabilities.

You are analyzing this as if it were a necessary assumption question.

Oops you're right. Find: "this must be true for the conc to be true" and replace with "is enough to make the conc true" :) Thanks for that catch.

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby youknowryan » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:32 am

EarlCat wrote:
youknowryan wrote:I hear you. Where I'm falling down is that PowerScore says that any new info in the conclusion will be in the answer. Ex:

premise: a -> b
conclusion: a -> c

the answer will then have C in it somewhere wither directly worded the same way or using a synonym of C. This question seems to violate that. That make sense?

Oh NOW I see what you were asking about.

A sufficient assumption does NOT have to have an element of the conclusion in it to be correct. It merely needs to bridge the logical gap.

Premise: a --> b
Premise: c --> d
Conclusion: a --> d
Sufficient Assumption: b --> c


Now, whether PowerScore's model holds for this problem depends on how you diagram it. If you consider every statement as a conditional, it might look like this:

Premise: Charter --> SepcialEd
Conclusion: ~LearningDisabilities --> ~Charter (contra: Charter --> LearningDisabilities)
TCR: SpecialEd --> LearningDisabilities

But if you're more precise about what statements are themselves conditional and what statements aren't, (as well as what statements are premises and conclusions) you might diagram like this:

Premise: Charter --> SpecialEd
Premise: ~LearningDisabilities
Conclusion: --> ~Charter
TCR: SpecialEd --> LearningDisabilities

In that case, you don't see any of the elements of the literal conclusion in the answer.


AWESOME ANSWER! Thanks a bunch. I see the error in my thinking. Much appreciated.

Audio Technica Guy
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby Audio Technica Guy » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:50 am

For just this reason I've always felt that powerscore's explanation of suff. assump. questions was really bad. Yes, you can diagram things in a way that their explanation makes sense, but why bother?

A sufficient assumption question ONLY needs to guarantee the conclusion is true, there isn't any other "rule" than that. They can do this either by tying the conclusion to the premises, or tying premises together when one of the premises already ties to the conclusion (or actually a couple other ways as well, but I don't want to digress too much).

P1: A -> B
P2: C -> D
P3: A
C: D

answer: B -> C

that would be a completely valid sufficient assumption question, even though the answer has nothing at all to do with the conclusion directly. In fact there have been several SA questions that took that form.

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

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby tomwatts » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:53 am

For a reasonably standard example of connecting premises to each other, rather than to the conclusion (as described in the previous post), see PT 24, Section 2, Question 21. You could read the arg as:

P: gambling -> ~enforceable
P: ~effective -> ~law
C: gambling -> ~law

such that the missing link is ~enforceable -> ~effective, which links premise to premise, not premise to conclusion.

For a comparable, perhaps weirder, question, see also PT 7, Section 4, Question 23. It's probably simplest to analyze this one as setting up a conditional chain, concluding the end of the chain, and then the right answer giving the beginning of the chain (specifically, the premises say, after a contrapositive, "~strike -> increase -> sell," and the conclusion says "sell," so the right answer says "~strike").

Audio Technica Guy
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Found a Sufficient Assumption Question that breaks the rules

Postby Audio Technica Guy » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:57 am

tomwatts wrote:For a reasonably standard example of connecting premises to each other, rather than to the conclusion (as described in the previous post), see PT 24, Section 2, Question 21. You could read the arg as:

P: gambling -> ~enforceable
P: ~effective -> ~law
C: gambling -> ~law

such that the missing link is ~enforceable -> ~effective, which links premise to premise, not premise to conclusion.

For a comparable, perhaps weirder, question, see also PT 7, Section 4, Question 23. It's probably simplest to analyze this one as setting up a conditional chain, concluding the end of the chain, and then the right answer giving the beginning of the chain (specifically, the premises say, after a contrapositive, "~strike -> increase -> sell," and the conclusion says "sell," so the right answer says "~strike").


Yeah, that was the one I was trying to think of, but I couldn't remember where it was in the manuals.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests