PT 57 S3 Q23—just...no.

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
PheidonArgeios

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:14 pm

PT 57 S3 Q23—just...no.

Postby PheidonArgeios » Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:42 pm

I can't make any sense out of the credited response (C) on this LR question. The stem concerns these new-fangled "mitters," which are easier on finishes than the brushes they replaced. This virtue is then applied to the present situation: it's especially important since "many" of today's cars have more vulnerable finishes than their predecessors. The credited response is a statement about (1) cars with older finishes, which is indeed familiar from the stem, and (2) "visible scratches," a concept which has no precedent whatsoever in the stem. In any other question, this unprecedented word, "visible," would be precisely the factor that discredits an answer choice. Be that as it may, on this occasion I can't see any path—given this question stem—to an inference about visible scratches (as opposed to invisible ones, presumably) and their relative frequency given the brushless status quo.

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun

Bronze
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

Re: PT 57 S3 Q23—just...no.

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:25 pm

PheidonArgeios wrote:I can't make any sense out of the credited response (C) on this LR question. The stem concerns these new-fangled "mitters," which are easier on finishes than the brushes they replaced. This virtue is then applied to the present situation: it's especially important since "many" of today's cars have more vulnerable finishes than their predecessors. The credited response is a statement about (1) cars with older finishes, which is indeed familiar from the stem, and (2) "visible scratches," a concept which has no precedent whatsoever in the stem. In any other question, this unprecedented word, "visible," would be precisely the factor that discredits an answer choice. Be that as it may, on this occasion I can't see any path—given this question stem—to an inference about visible scratches (as opposed to invisible ones, presumably) and their relative frequency given the brushless status quo.


First off, this is a most strongly supported question, so the credited answer doesn't have to be a foolproof inference - it simply has to be the most likely of the five answer choices we are given.

The stimulus tells us that mitters, which are a staple of modern car washes, are easier on most finishes, and that older finishes are less easily scratched than modern clear coat finishes. Answer choice C claims that modern car washes usually don't produce visible scratches on cars with older finishes.

There definitely are a few contentious things in this statement. You're right that "visible" scratches were never mentioned, and so we have no reliable way of determining how easily scratched something has to be for brushes/mitters to produce visible scratches on it. Also, the word 'usually' is fairly strong - it is equivalent to saying that modern car washes don't produce visible scratches on cars with older finishes a majority of the time.

However, the answer still works. For one, we know that mitters are easier on finishes than brushes, and that older finishes are more resilient than modern finishes. So while it isn't foolproof, (C) definitely has some support. More importantly, none of the other answers have any concrete support.

We don't have enough information to pick A or E.
There's no evidence supporting whether brushless car washes were a direct response to clear-coat finishes (B).
There's no evidence supporting the idea that brushes are better at cleaning old cars than mitters (D)



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests