pt 30, s2, q21

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

pt 30, s2, q21

Postby flash21 » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:48 pm

agriculture.

Did I reason my way correctly (I got the right answer but couldn't really see why some of the others were wrong, i just knew A was right)

What i did was basically:

- if all of the leaders of major parties oppose the bill --- > this means that bill will fail.

(A) fit the form of this, and the others either reverse it, or talked about bills that passed when we cared about ones that did not pass

Walrus
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:04 am

Re: pt 30, s2, q21

Postby Walrus » Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:32 pm

Hi flash 21
I am not LSAT star, but I will try to help since I struggled with this Q too.

P: The leaders of all major parties have stated that they oppose bill
C: Bill will almost surely fail to pass

P: ~S
C: ~P

The argument is not valid since we don't know anything about enactment procedure from the stimulus.

Assumption: ~S-->~P


A) ~S Most ~P
Correct answer. Not ideal answer but the best one among other AC.
B) ~P Most ~S
From this statement all we can pull is:
~S Some ~P which is weaker than
~S Most ~P
C) S-->P
If we combine this AC and premise, we will fail sufficient. When we fail sufficient rule becomes irrelevant.
D) P Most [Not unanimously supported]

"Not unanimously supported" part can mean anything from Not supported at all to Supported by majority. In any case I can't see how can we arrive at ~P from this statement.

E) P Most S

We want to arrive at ~P. It could have worked if we had conditional P-->S and applied counterpositive to it. But we have "Most" statement and we can apply counterpositive only to conditional statements.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: pt 30, s2, q21

Postby flash21 » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:37 pm

okay thanks -- this is basically what I had drawn out as well - initially I think like 3 of the answers looked the exact same to me

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: pt 30, s2, q21

Postby flash21 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:46 pm

Okay so, I revisited this , and in an attempt to review it, I explained it out to myself. Would someone mind taking a look at my reasoning below and critiquing? Yes, I know, this question again.

117.
Argument Breakdown:
• The new bill will almost surely fail…WHY?
• Leaders of all major parties stated that they opposed it

OR

Premise: Leaders of all major parties oppose the bill
Conclusion: The new bill will almost surely fail
AMPL (all major party leaders) oppose - bill wont pass (almost surely)
Or
Bill passes - some major party leaders support

So it seems like the argument is assuming that leaders of all major parties opposing the bill is sufficient to state that the bill will almost surely fail

A. I think this answer choices sort of ties it all up (fills that gap in the original premise/conclusion leap). It does so by stating, most bills not supported by these leaders have not been passed into law. It almost seems like to me as a sufficient assumption style answer choice –but it does strengthen it, I believe , by filling this gap and allowing the argument to be more solid

B. I am not sure this really does anything, because it seems to directly state what the stimulus says. Basically, not passed into law weren’t supported by a major party leader, which is essentially what the stimulus is saying. So, I think overall, this is a neutral answer choice.

C. If they all support it will pass – that’s fine to know, but I don’t think it adds support. It tells us the sufficient condition for the bill to PASS – but we are talking about what it takes for the bill to FAIL – and how we can support this – I don’t think this answer choice does anything for us.

D. I think this is a direct weakener. If this is true, then, the support used for the argument (that all major party leaders oppose the bill) would be pretty useless – because all of the successful bills did not need this condition to be present in order to be successful.

E. I don’t think this answer choice tells us about bills that FAIL – which is what we are interested in – it tells us about bills that have been passed – which is fine, but we need to know about bills which FAIL, perhaps failing has much different conditions? We cannot infer from this answer choice I don’t think.

BPlaura
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:51 pm

Re: pt 30, s2, q21

Postby BPlaura » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:09 pm

Your reasoning looks pretty good. The stimulus itself is very straightforward, with a single premise (not supported by any major party leaders) and conclusion (will not be passed).

flash21 wrote:A. I think this answer choices sort of ties it all up (fills that gap in the original premise/conclusion leap). It does so by stating, most bills not supported by these leaders have not been passed into law. It almost seems like to me as a sufficient assumption style answer choice –but it does strengthen it, I believe , by filling this gap and allowing the argument to be more solid


I think what you mean by saying that the correct answer is an SA-style answer choice is that the correct answer connects the premise and the conclusion (though not enough to actually be a sufficient assumption, since it just says that "most bills not supported by any leaders are not passed").

So, I wouldn't say that this answer choice "fills the gap" - but it does tell us that bills in similar circumstances have NOT been passed >50% of the time, which certainly makes it more likely that this particular bill will not be passed.

Answer choice (B) is interested in that it gives us the converse of (A). The problem is that even if most bills that were not passed weren't supported by party leaders, that doesn't tell us anything about the percentage of bills that ARE passed. Let's say there have been 100 bills that weren't passed, and of those, 70 weren't supported by any party leaders. However, there could very well be 1000 bills that were passed despite not having the support of the party leaders. That's why (B) is, as you said, neutral.

flash21 wrote:D. I think this is a direct weakener. If this is true, then, the support used for the argument (that all major party leaders oppose the bill) would be pretty useless – because all of the successful bills did not need this condition to be present in order to be successful.


I disagree with you about whether this answer choice actually weakens the argument, because this answer choice is saying that bills have passed that weren't UNANIMOUSLY supported. Here, however, we're talking about a bill that is not supported by ANY party leaders. So this is another answer choice that does nothing because it doesn't apply to the situation in the stimulus.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BEng,MBA,FRM,JD(?), Blacklace, Instrumental, xtremenite and 14 guests