Hey fellow LSATers,
Can someone please explain to me how answer choice "E" is right and more specifically how answer choice choice"B" is wrong?
This is an assumption question and based off of the stimulus it seems as though "E" is merely restating the premise ("all political theories...leading to convoluted language that is alienating...important agents of change" How is "E" any different from implications of that sentence, and how come "B" isn't the assumption?
Hopefully someone can help break this down to me. Thank You all so much!!!
PT 25 LR Section 2 Q.16 Forum
-
PeanutsNJam
- Posts: 4670
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm
Re: PT 25 LR Section 2 Q.16
What we know in the stimulus:
- The dissemination (I didn't even know what this meant when I did the problem; it was irrelevant. However, it means to broadcast without means of feedback.) of political theories can cause change
- Political theories are only formulated in universities, which leads to convoluted and complex language
- There are people outside the university who would be able to contribute good stuff to changes in politics
- It is therefore the responsibility of people outside the university to render it into accessible, clear language
Do you start to see the problem? The last statement is pretty dumb. It says "University folk talk in complex language. Therefore, the responsibility of translating this complex language into straightforward language lies on people outside the university."
The stimulus is assuming that people within academic settings are less willing/able than people outside the university to disseminate (or write) in a straightforward way. Using the negative rule, if people in universities are very well willing and capable of writing in a straightforward way, why would the responsibility fall on those outside the university?
B is wrong because the stimulus says theories can cause change, but it doesn't matter whether the people coming up with the theories intend to cause change or not. If the university snobs didn't want to cause change, it wouldn't weaken the argument that is presented in the last sentence. The argument is in the last sentence because of the phrase "it follows that". I believe it's called a scope shift. It isn't always wrong when the answer choice is talking about something that is tangential to the stimulus, but most of the time it is.
This stimulus is tricky because it says things like "Well, college kids are good at making up theories, but this is alienating towards people who would make good lobbyists or politicians who aren't in college." and "Political theories can cause change!" which are both completely irrelevant to the main argument. Even if change is never mentioned, if E is true, then the political scientist's argument would still be true (that the responsibility lies on outsiders to translate complex language).
- The dissemination (I didn't even know what this meant when I did the problem; it was irrelevant. However, it means to broadcast without means of feedback.) of political theories can cause change
- Political theories are only formulated in universities, which leads to convoluted and complex language
- There are people outside the university who would be able to contribute good stuff to changes in politics
- It is therefore the responsibility of people outside the university to render it into accessible, clear language
Do you start to see the problem? The last statement is pretty dumb. It says "University folk talk in complex language. Therefore, the responsibility of translating this complex language into straightforward language lies on people outside the university."
The stimulus is assuming that people within academic settings are less willing/able than people outside the university to disseminate (or write) in a straightforward way. Using the negative rule, if people in universities are very well willing and capable of writing in a straightforward way, why would the responsibility fall on those outside the university?
B is wrong because the stimulus says theories can cause change, but it doesn't matter whether the people coming up with the theories intend to cause change or not. If the university snobs didn't want to cause change, it wouldn't weaken the argument that is presented in the last sentence. The argument is in the last sentence because of the phrase "it follows that". I believe it's called a scope shift. It isn't always wrong when the answer choice is talking about something that is tangential to the stimulus, but most of the time it is.
This stimulus is tricky because it says things like "Well, college kids are good at making up theories, but this is alienating towards people who would make good lobbyists or politicians who aren't in college." and "Political theories can cause change!" which are both completely irrelevant to the main argument. Even if change is never mentioned, if E is true, then the political scientist's argument would still be true (that the responsibility lies on outsiders to translate complex language).
