(LR) PT#55, S#3, Q#4 (isn't there a problem here?)

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

(LR) PT#55, S#3, Q#4 (isn't there a problem here?)

Postby sighsigh » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:03 pm

We are trying to weaken Melvin's argument, which goes like this:

(1) Reduce client loads => recruit more qualified agents
(2) ~recruit more qualified agents
---
(3) ~reduce client loads

(A) weakens by negating (2): we actually CAN recruit more qualified agents.

The thing is, the way (A) negates (2) seems to make use of circular logic. (A) states that we can recruit more qualified agents by reducing client loads. Yet, the stimulus states that we cannot reduce client loads without recruiting more qualified agents! This screams circle to me.

What are your thoughts on this?

KFV
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:10 am

Re: (LR) PT#55, S#3, Q#4 (isn't there a problem here?)

Postby KFV » Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:21 pm

It's not realllly circular but I see what you're saying. It's saying that reducing client loads enables them to hire more agents, and that hiring more agents enables them to reduce client loads. A allows B and B allows A. I think, in general, you shouldn't think of these causation statements as being circular logic... the idea of circular logic applies in reasoning statements. Like "a person is B because he's C, and he's C because he's B" is what I'd consider circular.

One thing I always do when I get tripped up by the logic is try to apply the scenario to real life. Is it reasonable that they could reduce client loads and hire more agents? Sure. They're having trouble hiring new agents, but if they had reduced client loads it'd be easier. So from now on, they can offer reduced client loads to the agents they interview. This will help them hire more agents, who will take on some of the existing clients, reducing the client loads for the current agents.

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

Re: (LR) PT#55, S#3, Q#4 (isn't there a problem here?)

Postby sighsigh » Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:52 pm

^I agree it is not a circular argument. A circular argument is where the premises directly contain the conclusion, which means the conclusion is just a restatement of the premises. I suppose the appropriate term here is "catch-22" or "vicious circle."

So from now on, they can offer reduced client loads to the agents they interview. This will help them hire more agents, who will take on some of the existing clients, reducing the client loads for the current agents.

My reasoning follows yours. I believe the question would make more sense to me if (A) were to state "the goal of reducing client loads recruits more qualified agents" rather than simply "reducing client loads recruits more qualified agents."

User avatar
yoni45
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am

Re: (LR) PT#55, S#3, Q#4 (isn't there a problem here?)

Postby yoni45 » Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:20 pm

It's not circular, but what you're thinking of is that it seems to violate a premise of the argument. Which, generally LSAC won't do because that's not exactly a reasoning issue.

Nevertheless, the question stem asks which of the following, if true, would be the strongest counter. Whether it violates Melvin's premise or not, answer choice (A) if it was true (which would then take precedence over any conflicting information Melvin gives), would definitely go against Melvin's argument.

Another way to look at this, and the language doesn't make this clear cut, is that the claim that answer choice (A) contradicts is not a premise but a conclusion. Melvin's argument includes the statements:

"We already find it very difficult to recruit enough qualified agents", and, "recruiting even more agents is out of the question".

You could easily interpret the former as a premise, used as evidence for the latter statement. That is, Because we're having a hard enough time recruiting enough qualified agents, therefore recruiting more agents is out of the question. In that light, you're not contradicting a premise, but you're bringing in additional information that puts into question whether the existing premise supports the conclusion (which is common practice for LSAC). In other words, answer choice (A) points out that even though we're having a hard-time as-is (premise is maintained), that could be alleviated by lowering client loads, and so Melvin's conclusion is put into question.

Hope this helps! =)




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GioChanturia and 11 guests