PT57 S3 Q8

lawschool2014hopeful
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

PT57 S3 Q8

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:09 am

I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.

agglomeration
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: PT57 S3 Q8

Postby agglomeration » Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:35 am

So "presume" means to suppose something is the case on the basis of a probability. The AC is saying that the city council member supposes that one event will lead to a particular sequence of events.

Basically the argument is one entire slippery slope fallacy. Going through all the AC's.

A)its not distorting any argument. The stim even says "their case does appear to deserve this exception." but then it goes on to list potential consequences of what would happen if they did give the exception.-- eliminate

B)eliminate. No where in the Stim did they mention the source of the argument being a problem.

D)I don't see any contradiction in the argument- eliminate. (on a side note-- i don't think i have ever seen a question whose correct AC was this answer. If anyone has, i would love to know which)

E)This is a good trap answer-but it isn't what is actually wrong with the argument. What's wrong with it, is the use of the slippery slope leading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

hope this helps

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: PT57 S3 Q8

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:11 pm

jimmierock wrote:I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.


The LSAT often uses the language "presumes without providing justification" to mean, simply, "assumes" on flaw questions. And on a fundamental level, arguments are flawed when they assume things.

So, if the argument makes an assumption in order to get to the conclusion, that assumption can be characterized as the flaw of the argument.

lawschool2014hopeful
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: PT57 S3 Q8

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:33 pm

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:
jimmierock wrote:I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.


The LSAT often uses the language "presumes without providing justification" to mean, simply, "assumes" on flaw questions. And on a fundamental level, arguments are flawed when they assume things.

So, if the argument makes an assumption in order to get to the conclusion, that assumption can be characterized as the flaw of the argument.


Yea but, the argument is wasnt assuming the connection, it was making the jump explicitly, although a bad one.

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

Re: PT57 S3 Q8

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:03 pm

jimmierock wrote:
Christine (MLSAT) wrote:
jimmierock wrote:I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.


The LSAT often uses the language "presumes without providing justification" to mean, simply, "assumes" on flaw questions. And on a fundamental level, arguments are flawed when they assume things.

So, if the argument makes an assumption in order to get to the conclusion, that assumption can be characterized as the flaw of the argument.


Yea but, the argument is wasnt assuming the connection, it was making the jump explicitly, although a bad one.

I think the jump to the anarchy is particularly suspect. I don't see lots of ordinance exceptions as leading to this:

Image


You touch on three issues in my opinion:
1. assumptions are sometimes so "duh" that it feels like the author actually stated it.
2. The answer includes "without warrant" to drive home the idea that the author makes this jump, but doesn't support it.
3. We have to trust correct answers as teachers as we prep. Since the correct answer uses "presumed without sufficient warrant" we know that this argument is an example, in LSAC's opinion, of an argument with an assumption.

lawschool2014hopeful
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: PT57 S3 Q8

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:20 pm

Hm I suppose I can be swayed by a wider understanding of presumption, by taking it the account sometimes is just so "duh". But I feel like E somehow touches on the point? The argument stated that they would grant a well-deserved exception, to which it begins the slippery slope argument, but doesnt E capture that? That granting a well-deserve exception does not apply to those that are not well-deserved?

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

Re: PT57 S3 Q8

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:01 pm

jimmierock wrote:Hm I suppose I can be swayed by a wider understanding of presumption, by taking it the account sometimes is just so "duh". But I feel like E somehow touches on the point? The argument stated that they would grant a well-deserved exception, to which it begins the slippery slope argument, but doesnt E capture that? That granting a well-deserve exception does not apply to those that are not well-deserved?

I think the issue with what you're saying is that the argument doesn't need to distinguish between the two. It's the granting of an exception that starts the slippery slope. The fact that the first one is deserved seems like a concession to me.

I hope that helps.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Instrumental, JohnMaynardKeynes and 4 guests