Judgement call on parallel question from PT 16 Section 2 #19

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Judgement call on parallel question from PT 16 Section 2 #19

Postby sdwarrior403 » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:51 pm

Yes, I have already been here:

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q19 ... e1bd8dc9b8

No, it does not answer the question I have.

The conclusion in the original is to have one thing take the place of another.

Both A and E accomplish this.

The reasoning used in the original is that the thing used to take the place of the other will help out in a necessary way.

A does not accomplish this. E does accomplish this.

Why is it that A is correct and not E?

Tell me one attribute that A has in regards to matching the reasoning of the alternative better accomplishing a necessity. A has no such attribute.

User avatar
boblawlob
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Judgement call on parallel question from PT 16 Section 2 #19

Postby boblawlob » Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:18 pm

Argument gives 2 distinct reasons for reaching its conclusion: Dolores is skillful in securing monies and won't alienate people.

A's argument also gives 2 distinct reasons.


E doesn't give 2 distinct reasons. Rather, it gives 2 statements that are related to each other.

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Judgement call on parallel question from PT 16 Section 2 #19

Postby sdwarrior403 » Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:28 pm

boblawlob wrote:Argument gives 2 distinct reasons for reaching its conclusion: Dolores is skillful in securing monies and won't alienate people.

A's argument also gives 2 distinct reasons.


E doesn't give 2 distinct reasons. Rather, it gives 2 statements that are related to each other.

And there in lies the judgement call. Which is more important, the fact that A gives two distinct reasons while E does not, or that E gives reasoning related to necessity while A does not.

User avatar
BlaqBella
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Judgement call on parallel question from PT 16 Section 2 #19

Postby BlaqBella » Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:02 pm

boblawlob wrote:Argument gives 2 distinct reasons for reaching its conclusion: Dolores is skillful in securing monies and UNLIKE VICTOR, won't alienate people.


Edited this for you :mrgreen: . This is what stood out for me in eliminating E. It does not juxtapose the two options in one of its reason for choosing bus tickets over train tickets.

Answer choice (A) does with "UNLIKE the subway" as part of one of its reasons.

User avatar
boblawlob
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Judgement call on parallel question from PT 16 Section 2 #19

Postby boblawlob » Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:42 pm

sdwarrior403 wrote:
boblawlob wrote:Argument gives 2 distinct reasons for reaching its conclusion: Dolores is skillful in securing monies and won't alienate people.

A's argument also gives 2 distinct reasons.


E doesn't give 2 distinct reasons. Rather, it gives 2 statements that are related to each other.

And there in lies the judgement call. Which is more important, the fact that A gives two distinct reasons while E does not, or that E gives reasoning related to necessity while A does not.

Yeah, but E's reasoning pattern doesn't even come close to matching the stimulus.

If the stimulus was structured to say: "VLP would benefit from Dolores taking over the position from Victor, since the program needs financial support and if Victor keeps his job, then the program's chances of getting financial support go down (or remain the same)"...then maybe the answer would be E.

E's structure includes saying "if you don't do anything, then there will be a negative consequence." Nowhere in the stimulus does it talking about "not giving the job to Dolores will result in no financial support. Remember, this is a parallel question where you look at the structure of the argument in addition to how the argument is formulated.

I think you were reading too in depth on the "necessity" portion of the stimulus.

Stim says: Pick Dolores cuz she fulfills a need BETTER (that doesn't mean Victor can't fulfill the need himself) and she isn't alientating.
E says: Pick train tickets because it fulfills a need that a bus doesn't.

Dammit. You're making me think too hard about this.

foggynotion
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:19 am

Re: Judgement call on parallel question from PT 16 Section 2 #19

Postby foggynotion » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:24 am

The original concludes that one thing (person) is a better than the other for fulfilling a goal (the director job), because that person is better than the other in two different respects. Answer choice A's premises also makes two similar comparisons, but E's doesn't.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BobBoblaw, Yahoo [Bot], yamaji96 and 4 guests