PT 33 S1 (LR 1) Q21

User avatar
marlborofillet
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:12 am

PT 33 S1 (LR 1) Q21

Postby marlborofillet » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:59 pm

Howdy,

I don't understand the usage of 'every' in option (C) [the correct answer]. Initially, I considered (C) the strongest option; however, after catching a glimpse of the 'every', I thought it too strong an assertion.

The second sentence of the stimulus suggests the need for an opponent's response to engage the argument presented. In my mind, that is not the same as saying a responder needs to address 'every argument' in her rebuttal.

The breakdown between argument (stimulus) and every argument (suggesting a plurality of arguments) is left ambiguous, which could be my sticking point. Should I read 'argument' in the stimulus to mean a collection of arguments? Or, is this an instance where every functions as a sufficient condition? Or, is there something else I'm missing?

I'm much obliged for any direction in untangling this puppy.

P.s. My ideal rendition of (C) would be as follows: Debating technique that do not confront an argument....

User avatar
Moomoo2u
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 3:38 am

Re: PT 33 S1 (LR 1) Q21

Postby Moomoo2u » Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:53 pm

This might sound radical but ... could you post the question text?

User avatar
marlborofillet
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:12 am

Re: PT 33 S1 (LR 1) Q21

Postby marlborofillet » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:25 am

I didn't post the question text earlier as I feared that would get the comment deleted.

Here's to radicalness:

Attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided in political debates. Such attacks do no confront the opponent's argument; instead they attempt to cast doubt on the opponent's moral right to be in the debate at all.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?

(a) Attacks on an opponent's character result from an inability to confront the opponent's argument properly.

(b) Attacks on an opponent's character should not impress those watching a political debate.

(c) Debating techniques that do not confront every argument should be avoided.

(d) Attacking the character of one's opponent does nothing to preserve one's moral right to enter into further political debates.

(e) Questions of character should be raised in political debate if they are relevant to the opponent's argument.

Again, I'm obliged to any direction I might receive.

User avatar
Errzii
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:09 am

Re: PT 33 S1 (LR 1) Q21

Postby Errzii » Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:01 am

Are you having difficulty accepting the answer because the wording is too strong? The stimulus is asking you to justify the rationale. A "stronger" answer choice would actually be beneficial in this case. For example,

-Argument-
"Drivers should avoid running red lights, such actions are not safe"

-Justify this reasoning-

a) EVERY action that is not safe should be avoided

b) Running red lights may cause the driver to get in an accident


In the above example b) strengthen the conclusion very slightly but it is not nearly as strong as a) is. Therefore, a) "most" helps to justify the reasoning. That's my take on that particular question. Anyway, even if there were some ambiguity in the wording, none of the other answer choices even seem close enough for me to discard it on "strong language" alone. HTH

User avatar
marlborofillet
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:12 am

Re: PT 33 S1 (LR 1) Q21

Postby marlborofillet » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:07 pm

First, Errzii I appreciate the help.

At this point, I understand that (c) is the best answer; I fail to see how it is a correct, or accurate, answer. I believe I might have misused strong in my original post. Instead, I consider answer (c) to encompass a larger set than author of the stimulus intends. Specifically, 'every argument' (a la answer (c)) suggests that the rebuttal must respond to more than one argument (plural) to adhere to the principle. Nevertheless, the stimulus decries tactics that don't address the opponent's argument (singular). That initial ambiguity, between the argument and every argument, prompted me to consider what set 'every argument' might entail. My first thought, an absurd one I admit, was that the principle advocated addressing every argument ever. Obviously, an unhelpful train of thought. Feeling unhappy with that rendition, I settled for every argument that an opponent had advocated. The principle, when appropriately followed, would produce a political debate like this:

Speaker A: Arg1, Arg2, Arg3
Speaker B: Rebuttal-Arg1, Rebuttal-Arg2, Rebuttal-Arg3.....

However, the stimulus laments the usage of ad hominem arguments because they fail to address any argument [my wording] advanced by one's opponent. This understanding of the stimulus would sanction a political debate like the following:

Speaker A: Arg1, Arg2, Arg3
Speaker B: Rebuttal-Arg2, Rebuttal-Arg3, Arg4

[Notice the omission of a response to Arg 1.]

Perhaps, the difficulty with my train of thought arises from an attempt to understand 'every' as singular. The most straightforward reading of the stimulus yields a one argument debate. I just cannot settle for responding to one argument as the equivalent of addressing every argument; however, I do concede that if a class contains one thing, every thing in that class would be one thing.

Do you understand the nature of my confusion? Should I just accept that every can refer to a singular thing? Thanks again for any help.

SanDiegoJake
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:17 pm

Re: PT 33 S1 (LR 1) Q21

Postby SanDiegoJake » Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Yeah, you want to think of LSAT "principles" as broad-scoped umbrella-type "laws" designed to cover many situations. The "every" in this case certainly does not imply singularity. But that doesn't make it the wrong answer. You should never eliminate an answer choice in a "principle" question as "too broad" or "too strongly worded". Most correct answers to these "principle" questions will, in fact, be of broader scope and/or more strongly worded than the situation cited.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests