PT 59 S2 LR 22 - this is killing me.. help please! Forum

[kky215]

Hi guys, so I am reviewing PT 59 S2 LR Q22.

I've read the explanation over and over, and I have also browsed MLSAT LR forum but I still can't seem to figure out why A is the answer.
Initially, I chose C as the answer but now I understand why C is not the correct answer.

I still think that A is somewhat contradicting the premise.
If A said 'few workers in plant b did NOT consume..' or even if it said 'only a few workers in plant b' then I would say that it is definitely a strengthener, because it eliminates the possibility that they did NOT buy or made nutritious breakfast on their own (instead of receiving the free one).

However, A says that "FEW workers in plant B consumed!"
I thought FEW = SOME (1-100) ???

How is this a strengthener?
Am I not thinking clearly..?

Can anyone please help a fellow out?

[JWP1022]

"Few" idiomatically means "not many" or "a small number." It's safe to assume that's its meaning here.

The question says that the workers from Plant A received/were given nutritious breakfasts. It also says, simply, that members of Plant B were not given a nutritious breakfast (presumably provided by the people conducting the study). Well, what if someone from Plant B that wasn't simply given a breakfast said "fuck this, I'm going to get an omelet from the diner. Who's with me?" and all of the workers from Plant B went and got nutritious breakfasts every day. If that's the case, then the study can hardly be conclusive evidence of breakfast makes workers more productive.

The wording of the stimulus doesn't preclude the fact that these workers weren't actually eating breakfast, just that they weren't being given it. There's a big difference, albeit a tough one to catch.

In essence, A simply eliminates something that would weaken the argument, thereby strengthening it. Remember, when you are tasked with strengthening an argument, you should be looking to play "defense," so to speak. Oftentimes you'll need to strengthen simply through an AC that rules out something that, if true, would weaken. A does that.

[wtrc]

"Few" idiomatically means "not many" or "a small number." It's safe to assume that's its meaning here.

The question says that the workers from Plant A received/were given nutritious breakfasts. It also says, simply, that members of Plant B were not given a nutritious breakfast (presumably provided by the people conducting the study). Well, what if someone from Plant B that wasn't simply given a breakfast said "fuck this, I'm going to get an omelet from the diner. Who's with me?" and all of the workers from Plant B went and got nutritious breakfasts every day. If that's the case, then the study can hardly be conclusive evidence of breakfast makes workers more productive.

The wording of the stimulus doesn't preclude the fact that these workers weren't actually eating breakfast, just that they weren't being given it. There's a big difference, albeit a tough one to catch.

In essence, A simply eliminates something that would weaken the argument, thereby strengthening it. Remember, when you are tasked with strengthening an argument, you should be looking to play "defense," so to speak. Oftentimes you'll need to strengthen simply through an AC that rules out something that, if true, would weaken. A does that.

lol

And yeah, great explanation, agreed with JWP. For the study to be valid, we need to make sure that workers in Plant A did something different than workers in plant B- meaning we need to be sure Plant B workers did not get breakfast anyway.

[kky215]

"Few" idiomatically means "not many" or "a small number." It's safe to assume that's its meaning here.

The question says that the workers from Plant A received/were given nutritious breakfasts. It also says, simply, that members of Plant B were not given a nutritious breakfast (presumably provided by the people conducting the study). Well, what if someone from Plant B that wasn't simply given a breakfast said "fuck this, I'm going to get an omelet from the diner. Who's with me?" and all of the workers from Plant B went and got nutritious breakfasts every day. If that's the case, then the study can hardly be conclusive evidence of breakfast makes workers more productive.

The wording of the stimulus doesn't preclude the fact that these workers weren't actually eating breakfast, just that they weren't being given it. There's a big difference, albeit a tough one to catch.

In essence, A simply eliminates something that would weaken the argument, thereby strengthening it. Remember, when you are tasked with strengthening an argument, you should be looking to play "defense," so to speak. Oftentimes you'll need to strengthen simply through an AC that rules out something that, if true, would weaken. A does that.

lol

And yeah, great explanation, agreed with JWP. For the study to be valid, we need to make sure that workers in Plant A did something different than workers in plant B- meaning we need to be sure Plant B workers did not get breakfast anyway.

Thanks for the quick responses guys!
Those subtle quantity wordings on the LSAT can be a bit confusing at times.
If the answer choice A had included some negative wordings such as "only a few" then it would have been MUCH clearer. but eh.. this is the LSAT.
But many thanks!