PT#53, S#3 (LR), Q#17 [U KNOW U WANNA HELP :D]

sighsigh
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm

PT#53, S#3 (LR), Q#17 [U KNOW U WANNA HELP :D]

Postby sighsigh » Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:26 pm

Argument:

An evidence body is like a rope.
If one rope strand breaks, the rope is fine.
---
Therefore: If a few items are discredited, the evidence body is fine.

This seems like a very airtight argument to me. I'm having trouble pinpointing the flaw(s). The only flaw I've noticed is that there is a shift from 'one' to 'few' (i.e. more than one). Really, based on the premises, you can only conclude that if ONE item is discredited, the evidence body is fine. You can't really say the evidence body is fine for a few discredited items.

(A) says something different. But to me, (A) is not a flaw. You do not need to assume that the item(s) were not critical to the evidence body for the argument to work.

The stimulus clearly states that if a rope strand breaks, the rope is fine. Now, this must mean that it doesn't matter if that rope strand was super critical to the rope or not. Either way, the rope is fine. And, we know an evidence body is like a rope in every way. Therefore, if an item is discredited, the evidence body is fine, whether or not that item was super critical to the evidence body or not.

eric922
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: PT#53, S#3 (LR), Q#17 [U KNOW U WANNA HELP :D]

Postby eric922 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:54 pm

I don't have the question in front of me so I'm just guessing based on your stimulus, but could it be that some strands of evidence are much more important than others? I just looked at the question and answer A matches my original theory. Let me try and use an analogy. Say it's a murder case and you have 3 pieces of evidence one is a confession, one is the murder weapon,and one is proof that the murderer and the victim had a disagreement before the victim was killed. If you lost both of the first pieces of evidence your case becomes much harder to win. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

natashka85
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: PT#53, S#3 (LR), Q#17 [U KNOW U WANNA HELP :D]

Postby natashka85 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:58 am

sighsigh wrote:Argument:

An evidence body is like a rope.
If one rope strand breaks, the rope is fine.
---
Therefore: If a few items are discredited, the evidence body is fine.

This seems like a very airtight argument to me. I'm having trouble pinpointing the flaw(s). The only flaw I've noticed is that there is a shift from 'one' to 'few' (i.e. more than one). Really, based on the premises, you can only conclude that if ONE item is discredited, the evidence body is fine. You can't really say the evidence body is fine for a few discredited items.

(A) says something different. But to me, (A) is not a flaw. You do not need to assume that the item(s) were not critical to the evidence body for the argument to work.

The stimulus clearly states that if a rope strand breaks, the rope is fine. Now, this must mean that it doesn't matter if that rope strand was super critical to the rope or not. Either way, the rope is fine. And, we know an evidence body is like a rope in every way. Therefore, if an item is discredited, the evidence body is fine, whether or not that item was super critical to the evidence body or not.

its a part and a whole flaw,it mentions that one piece of it doesn`t affect the whole thing,so what it fails to do is that sometimes one part of it can affect the whole thing,cause it might be critical for its functioning,i will give u an analogy like human heart is critical for the whole body if your heart stops then u will die,but the person wont necessarily die of he loses his hand.this is a little bit bad analogy ,but i hope it helps u to understand.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: PT#53, S#3 (LR), Q#17 [U KNOW U WANNA HELP :D]

Postby Micdiddy » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:33 am

Reading the stimulus, the obvious flaw to me is that these two things differ in a critical respect, or in other words who cares a lick about ropes and strands, they have nothing to with evidence.
Of course, that's why they have answer choice D as a wrong answer, but really A is what points out this flaw and D makes its own critical mistake. Bluntly,
D is just plain wrong. The argument does not do what D says it does, so there's no way D can be the flaw. The argument does show they have similarities, whether or not we agree with those similarities is not the same as what D is saying.
A is pointing out a reason why the analogy is seriously flawed. Strands on a rope are all pretty much interchangeable, but evidence in a case is most assuredly not as other posters have pointed out. That's basically it.

Based on your post, I think your problem with the approach to this problem is that you just accepted everything in the stimulus as gospel. Whereas this is the correct approach to certain question types, like Must Be True, we do not need to do this with every single stimulus. In this case, if we are pointing out a flaw in the reasoning we do not need to be all "well he SAID the two are similar, so then his logic must be air tight because we accept they're similar in every way, period." Just because he said it here, doesn't make it so.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cctv, cherrygalore, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests