42-4-13

User avatar
timmydoeslsat
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm

42-4-13

Postby timmydoeslsat » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:55 pm

While I was able to select this answer by elimination, I would like further explanation for answer choice A.

So what we know is that according to a recent survey, top loaders are superior to front loaders.

We also know that those in wheel chairs find the controls in the front to be more convenient than the those at the top.

The argument concludes that at least some people find the front loaders to be superior.


For answer choice A (negated): Even if it were true that no consumers held the belief that the convenience of front loaders outweighed the advantages of the top loaders in assessing which is superior.....couldn't the conclusion still hold?

Couldn't the convenience of front loaders have the same weight as the advantages of the top loaders, yet it was the fact that the top loaders had a monstrous list of disadvantages.

My broad question is as follows: Can it not be the case that an item is superior due to it having less disadvantages even though it does not have as many advantages as the other item.

User avatar
outlookingin
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: 42-4-13

Postby outlookingin » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:33 am

timmydoeslsat wrote:While I was able to select this answer by elimination, I would like further explanation for answer choice A.

So what we know is that according to a recent survey, top loaders are superior to front loaders.

We also know that those in wheel chairs find the controls in the front to be more convenient than the those at the top.

The argument concludes that at least some people find the front loaders to be superior.


For answer choice A (negated): Even if it were true that no consumers held the belief that the convenience of front loaders outweighed the advantages of the top loaders in assessing which is superior.....couldn't the conclusion still hold?

Couldn't the convenience of front loaders have the same weight as the advantages of the top loaders, yet it was the fact that the top loaders had a monstrous list of disadvantages.

My broad question is as follows: Can it not be the case that an item is superior due to it having less disadvantages even though it does not have as many advantages as the other item.


Alright this time I really have no idea what you are asking... but again, here's what I have to say hahaha:

If this were a "Must Be True" question then yeah I could see a little wiggle room there, that the statement "for some consumers the front-loaders are superior" could still be true even if (A) is negated...

BUT that's absolutely not what this question is asking. That statement is derived directly from the premises offered, and we have to find the assumption needed to make that follow. As soon as you add "So" to the front of that statement, negating (A) does indeed destroy the relationship between the premises offered and the conclusion.

User avatar
outlookingin
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: 42-4-13

Postby outlookingin » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:35 am

outlookingin wrote:
timmydoeslsat wrote:While I was able to select this answer by elimination, I would like further explanation for answer choice A.

So what we know is that according to a recent survey, top loaders are superior to front loaders.

We also know that those in wheel chairs find the controls in the front to be more convenient than the those at the top.

The argument concludes that at least some people find the front loaders to be superior.


For answer choice A (negated): Even if it were true that no consumers held the belief that the convenience of front loaders outweighed the advantages of the top loaders in assessing which is superior.....couldn't the conclusion still hold?

Couldn't the convenience of front loaders have the same weight as the advantages of the top loaders, yet it was the fact that the top loaders had a monstrous list of disadvantages.

My broad question is as follows: Can it not be the case that an item is superior due to it having less disadvantages even though it does not have as many advantages as the other item.


Alright this time I really have no idea what you are asking... but again, here's what I have to say hahaha:

If this were a "Must Be True" question then yeah I could see a little wiggle room there, that the statement "for some consumers the front-loaders are superior" could still be true even if (A) is negated...

BUT that's absolutely not what this question is asking. That statement is derived directly from the premises offered, and we have to find the assumption needed to make that follow. As soon as you add "So" to the front of that statement, negating (A) does indeed destroy the relationship between the premises offered and the conclusion.


But maybe even what I said right there is wrong... no matter which way you look at it, if you accept that the conclusion and the premises are part of the same argument then negating (A) destroys the argument, period.

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: 42-4-13

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:26 pm

timmydoeslsat wrote:My broad question is as follows: Can it not be the case that an item is superior due to it having less disadvantages even though it does not have as many advantages as the other item.

Hi Timmy. I think the answer is "yes but not really" to this broad question. ") Let's say--looking at my desk--a metal water bottle has only 2 disadvantages and 3 advantages, and a plastic one has 8 disadvantages and 4 advantages. Is this possible? No. Those 8 disadvantages are in relation to the metal water bottle, meaning that the metal water bottle must have 8 advantages.

In terms of this argument, we're told that the top loader is superior overall. So, for the front loaders to be superior, it must be that the convenience must outweigh this overall superiority for certain consumers. If we negate (A), and there's no such outweighing, then the overall superiority is king.

I hope that helps.

User avatar
outlookingin
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: 42-4-13

Postby outlookingin » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:59 pm

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:
timmydoeslsat wrote:My broad question is as follows: Can it not be the case that an item is superior due to it having less disadvantages even though it does not have as many advantages as the other item.

Hi Timmy. I think the answer is "yes but not really" to this broad question. ") Let's say--looking at my desk--a metal water bottle has only 2 disadvantages and 3 advantages, and a plastic one has 8 disadvantages and 4 advantages. Is this possible? No. Those 8 disadvantages are in relation to the metal water bottle, meaning that the metal water bottle must have 8 advantages.

In terms of this argument, we're told that the top loader is superior overall. So, for the front loaders to be superior, it must be that the convenience must outweigh this overall superiority for certain consumers. If we negate (A), and there's no such outweighing, then the overall superiority is king.

I hope that helps.


Whoa. This is all waaaaaaay over my head... probably going to stay out of these things in the future haha

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: 42-4-13

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:49 pm

outlookingin wrote: Whoa. This is all waaaaaaay over my head... probably going to stay out of these things in the future haha
Yeah, that got pretty geeky.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greenteachurro, njames1961, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests