LR reason problem

ahri
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:04 pm

LR reason problem

Postby ahri » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:34 pm

TEST 31 section 3 21#

I've seen a lot of explanations for kaplan and manhattan forum board.They side step the conclusions qualifying statement about athletes who need to improve their muscular strength. i see why all the other choices are wrong but cant understand why c is right. Since the conclusion only regards athletes who need to increase strength, why does it matter if it improves other functions?

Techsan23
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:21 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby Techsan23 » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:43 pm

Think of it this way. Let's say we're talking about wearing gloves instead of engineered foods. You are an athlete who wants to increase your strength but wearing gloves won't help increase your strength. So I tell you that you shouldn't wear gloves at all because it won't help you increase your strength. Well I'm making a huge leap there. Just because it doesn't help you increase strength doesn't mean there's no other reason for you to wear gloves. So in order for me to tell you that you shouldn't use gloves at all, I'm assuming there's no benefit to you at all from wearing gloves. I hope that helps.

ahri
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby ahri » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:12 pm

thats how they other sources explain it as if the conclusion was suggesting no athlete should take it which then i could see that the answer choice being an assumption. But isnt the the statement directing it to only those who are trying to increase strength? we know the stuff doesnt increase muscle mass which is necessary for strength.

how i understand the conclusion is its explicitly stating only that one goal which means other considerations is something they arent considering. So yes gloves could help a work out but does it build muscle. no, but it lessens calluses but the conclusion is directing only toward muscle building.

i tried to think it might be something like indirect like it could help the body build strength indirectly. but i keep thinking when i see this answer choice for a question that is only concerned with only aspect of something, a wrong choice is the one that concerns with a too large of a scope answer.

the manhattan forum tries to say the who are concerned with strength is not a qualifying statement but once you say "who are..." isnt that automatic directing it to a certain group of people

Techsan23
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:21 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby Techsan23 » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:29 pm

I think you are assuming the scope to be too narrow. It is directed toward people who want to build muscle but it never states that that they are only interested in building muscle and nothing else. Even those who are interested in building muscle can have other benefits from the glove/engineered foods. So in order to say people who want to build muscle shouldn't wear gloves you are assuming that they get no other benefit/ aren't interested in receiving any other benefit other than building muscle. So in a way, you are already making the assumption that the questions is asking you to make.

ahri
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby ahri » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:05 pm

i dont have to assume they aren't going to get any benefit. all i have to assume because the conclusion directs towards the people who are concerned with strength that the gloves wouldn't give you a boost in the strength department. that means i dont need to assume other qualities only its merit in strength building.

i think the conclusion is narrow. would you agree that if the conclusion would be narrow if it said athletes should not take it to boost strength

but isnt saying athletes who are concerned with strength should not take it the same thing as athletes should not take it to boost strength

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby bp shinners » Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:08 pm

ahri wrote:TEST 31 section 3 21#

I've seen a lot of explanations for kaplan and manhattan forum board.They side step the conclusions qualifying statement about athletes who need to improve their muscular strength. i see why all the other choices are wrong but cant understand why c is right. Since the conclusion only regards athletes who need to increase strength, why does it matter if it improves other functions?


You're missing a very important comma in there.

The argument's conclusion isn't limited to athletes who are trying to increase their strength. Rather, it says: Athletes, who need to improve their muscle strength, should...
It's not saying that there is a subset of athletes who need to improve their strength. That comma defines all athletes as needing to improve their muscle strength. It's essentially a meaningless statement as far as the argument is concerned and is just put in there to throw you off. The conclusion would mean the same thing if it just said, "Athletes should not..."

However, even if that comma wasn't there, C would still be the right answer. If it was limited solely to a subset of athletes who are trying to build muscular strength, that's still not the only thing they're interested in.

Imagine if instead of talking about these nutritional supplements, it talked about oxygen. Oxygen doesn't help you build strength. Therefore, athletes who are interested in improving their muscle strength shouldn't breathe oxygen.

Ridiculous, and it points out that just because someone has a goal (or even a main goal), there are still other factors to consider. Here, yes, we know that these supplements aren't helping the athletes build muscle strength. From that, I can conclude that they shouldn't take the powder if their only reason for taking it is to build muscle strength. But that's not my conclusion - my conclusion is that they shouldn't take it at all. That's too much - it's implying there is an active reason to not take it. If it's just not helping me reach my goal, then I could go either way with it (take it or not). But by saying they shouldn't take it, I've gone too far.

ahri
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby ahri » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:12 pm

i agree that in the real world i wouldnt assume muscle str is the only thing that should be considred, but this is the LSAT and you have to take it literally what they are saying. i agree the commas make that part unnecessary by the rules of grammar.

But as you can see your explanation involves me denying that part . Your oxygen example isn't quite right. it's more like people who are looking for oxygen should not eat. Of course you should eat even though it won't help you get oxygen but your oxygen problem isn't solved. and assuming "eating does not benefit oxygen means then there are no other substantial benefits" wouldn't be needed. because you can assume it does have benefits (denying the assumption) and it still doesn't solve your oxygen problem which the conclusion is directing it to.

ahri
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby ahri » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:31 pm

alright this question is really stressing me out. Athletes, who need to improve their muscular strength, should not consume engineered.

if this conditional form right? : Athlete who need to improve muscle str> don't consume engineered foods

contrapositive: consume engineered foods> not an athlete who needs to improve muscle str

if you deny the assumption and consume it for other reasons then it's not for muscles str which means the conclusion holds up even though denying the assumption should weaken it.

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: LR reason problem

Postby bp shinners » Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:33 pm

ahri wrote:i agree that in the real world i wouldnt assume muscle str is the only thing that should be considred, but this is the LSAT and you have to take it literally what they are saying.


I agree, and if you take what it says literally, you are still reading it wrong. For what you're arguing to be correct, it would need to say that the only possible goal these athletes could have in taking this engineered supplement is to build muscle. It doesn't say that. Therefore, there can be other reasons to take it, and the conclusion's argument still doesn't follow.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, Instrumental, Voyager, wildquest8200 and 7 guests