PT #31, Section 2, Question 19

lifeprincess13
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:33 pm

PT #31, Section 2, Question 19

Postby lifeprincess13 » Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:58 pm

The explanation that is given to me is complete BS.

This is the explanation to the passage of the question, which I understand, can make sense of and agree with: "If the flowers Drew got today had been sent by someone who knows him, he would have got violets instead of roses; yet it the flowers had been sent to someone who does not know Drew, he would have received a card, but none came. Therefore the florist made a mistake."

However, the part that explains the answer choice does not make sense to me at all; here it is: "(B) is correct. This argument states that Drew prefers violets to roses. Thus, if one desired to please Drew, one would send violets. Yet it states nothing about what one would do if one desired to do something other than please."

The passage says nor implies that the person giving Drew flowers desires NOT to please. I mean, there is just nothing in the passage to indicate that the person did not want to please.

If someone could explain what I am missing or simply explain it in another way, I would be more than grateful.

Thanks! :)

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

Re: PT #31, Section 2, Question 19

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:52 pm

lifeprincess13 wrote:The explanation that is given to me is complete BS.

This is the explanation to the passage of the question, which I understand, can make sense of and agree with: "If the flowers Drew got today had been sent by someone who knows him, he would have got violets instead of roses; yet it the flowers had been sent to someone who does not know Drew, he would have received a card, but none came. Therefore the florist made a mistake."

However, the part that explains the answer choice does not make sense to me at all; here it is: "(B) is correct. This argument states that Drew prefers violets to roses. Thus, if one desired to please Drew, one would send violets. Yet it states nothing about what one would do if one desired to do something other than please."

The passage says nor implies that the person giving Drew flowers desires NOT to please. I mean, there is just nothing in the passage to indicate that the person did not want to please.

If someone could explain what I am missing or simply explain it in another way, I would be more than grateful.

Thanks! :)

I think I see what you're saying. However, there's nothing in the passage saying that the person did want to please. The basic issue in this argument is we need to find a way that the situation is explained in some way other than it being a florist mistake. If the sender knew Drew, he/she would know Drew doesn't prefer roses, but might send them anyway. There's a longer explanation here.

I hope that helps.

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: PT #31, Section 2, Question 19

Postby TripTrip » Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:16 pm

lifeprincess13 wrote:The passage says nor implies that the person giving Drew flowers desires NOT to please. I mean, there is just nothing in the passage to indicate that the person did not want to please.

Exactly! The question is "Which of the following would most weaken the argument." The correct answer choice should not already be indicated in the argument.

lifeprincess13
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:33 pm

Re: PT #31, Section 2, Question 19

Postby lifeprincess13 » Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:29 pm

thanks guys :) although I still think (E) is a pretty good answer choice, I can at least understand why (B) is correct. The Manhattan LSAT was a great help!

and the fact that a weaken answer OBVIOUSLY doesn't appear in the passage makes TOTAL sense now. lol :) thanks again!

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: PT #31, Section 2, Question 19

Postby TripTrip » Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:00 am

lifeprincess13 wrote:I still think (E) is a pretty good answer choice

The problem with (E) is that it doesn't affect the argument in a meaningful way. The argument doesn't say anything about whether people who know Drew send flowers or not, just that people who don't know Drew definitely do. So if knowing Drew is Kd and sending a card is Sc, the set up is:

-Kd -> Sc (If they don't know Drew, they send flowers.)

The only thing we can infer from this is

-Sc -> Kd (If they don't send flowers, they know Drew.)

We cannot infer Kd -> -Sc (If they know Drew, they don't send flowers), which would be contradictory to answer (E).

Instead, it is entirely possible that ∃(Kd -> Sc) (Someone who knows Drew sends a card with flowers). Thus, answer (E) can't weaken the argument because it is acceptable within the given setup.

lifeprincess13
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:33 pm

Re: PT #31, Section 2, Question 19

Postby lifeprincess13 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:58 pm

That's exactly what I have written right next to the problem because that was the answer choice I was debating. So, although I had realized that, none of the other answer choices came close in my head...(E) was the closest that affected the argument in my head.

On the same note: anyone have any tips for figuring out an answer when none of the choices seem to be correct? Of course, besides the obvious read the passage and answer stem again...

Thanks!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, Christinabruin and 7 guests