PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

trojanfan06
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:35 pm

PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby trojanfan06 » Mon May 11, 2009 1:38 pm

I don't really understand this question, is it about money not really existing. I tried to diagram it but ended up choosing B for some reason. Thanks again!

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby TheLuckyOne » Mon May 11, 2009 4:10 pm

The argument says: if we believe, it exists
if we don't believe, it doesn't exist
Therefore, it doesn't exist.

A: our belief shouldn't affect the existence of smth if that smth exists. ( if exists --> we may believe it or not)
diagram:
exists--> our belief doesn't affect it
our belief affects it --> doesn't exist

B: if smth exists, but you think it doesn't/ smth doesn't exist, but you think it does ---> that smth in fact exists.




I don't like this question either. For some reason I think, it's not that much about diagraming it properly as of really thinking. In my opinion, it's one of those questions desined not to work for students who apply strictly mechanical methods learned in prep classes (though diagram works here perfectly).

trojanfan06
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:35 pm

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby trojanfan06 » Tue May 12, 2009 3:04 pm

I'm still not quite getting it. I see the conclusion about "money does not exist" but I don't see the 2 premises and how choice A links a premise to a conclusion...

User avatar
Atlas LSAT Teacher
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:18 am

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Tue May 12, 2009 3:38 pm

Yeah, it's a tricky one. I agree with The Lucky One that this is not well-treated through diagramming. In general I find diagramming hurts more students than it helps.

As you're reading missing assumption questions, your mind should be constantly looking for the gap. The conclusion is that money does not exist. The proof: we could make it disappear if we all stopped believing in it. What's not said is why this proves it doesn't exist. Maybe things can disappear when we stop believing in it but still be considered to exist right now (or perhaps existing can continue once you disappear? invisible ink, for example). Regardless, in this problem, there's an assumption that this phenomenon proves something is not real, and so we're assuming that a real thing would react differently to us not believing in it.

(A) fills the gap quite nicely, while (B) doesn't help the argument since it would only show that money does not exist if it was proven that we have a mistaken belief about money. BTW, the fact that we're mistaken about money doesn't count as the mistaken belief, as that would be circular and, more importantly, the conclusion isn't actually that there's a mistaken belief about money, just that it doesn't exist (it's never explicitly mentioned that we all think it does exist).

An analogous argument might be: I know that Patty is kind because if we all teased her, she would cry. For that argument to be drawn properly we'd need to know that our kindness litmus test really works: that if she were not kind and we teased her, she would not cry.

I hope that clears it up.

- Noah

User avatar
TheLuckyOne
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:00 pm

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby TheLuckyOne » Tue May 12, 2009 4:26 pm

trojanfan06 wrote:I'm still not quite getting it. I see the conclusion about "money does not exist" but I don't see the 2 premises and how choice A links a premise to a conclusion...



Assumtion is a missing link between evidence and conclusion, in other words smth that clears up how we reached that very conclusion from given premises.

E.g.
Premise:I murdered someone
Conclusion: I will go to prison.
Assumption: If you murder someone, you will go to prison.

It seems obvious, right.

Now...

Premise: Our belief affects the existence of money. (when we believe, it exists; when we don't, it doesn't exist)
Conclusion: Therefore, money doesn't exist.
Assumption: If our belief affects the existence of smth, that thing doesn't exist.

User avatar
quasi-stellar
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby quasi-stellar » Tue May 04, 2010 4:13 pm

Wow, I have never had such a difficult time figuring out the question. I usually see how the correct answers work, but this one just didn't make sense. I think it's the hardest question I have ever seen on this test.

WWAD
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:38 pm

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby WWAD » Tue May 04, 2010 5:40 pm

Atlas LSAT Teacher wrote:Yeah, it's a tricky one. I agree with The Lucky One that this is not well-treated through diagramming. In general I find diagramming hurts more students than it helps.

As you're reading missing assumption questions, your mind should be constantly looking for the gap. The conclusion is that money does not exist. The proof: we could make it disappear if we all stopped believing in it. What's not said is why this proves it doesn't exist. Maybe things can disappear when we stop believing in it but still be considered to exist right now (or perhaps existing can continue once you disappear? invisible ink, for example). Regardless, in this problem, there's an assumption that this phenomenon proves something is not real, and so we're assuming that a real thing would react differently to us not believing in it.

(A) fills the gap quite nicely, while (B) doesn't help the argument since it would only show that money does not exist if it was proven that we have a mistaken belief about money. BTW, the fact that we're mistaken about money doesn't count as the mistaken belief, as that would be circular and, more importantly, the conclusion isn't actually that there's a mistaken belief about money, just that it doesn't exist (it's never explicitly mentioned that we all think it does exist).

An analogous argument might be: I know that Patty is kind because if we all teased her, she would cry. For that argument to be drawn properly we'd need to know that our kindness litmus test really works: that if she were not kind and we teased her, she would not cry.

I hope that clears it up.

- Noah

Wow, I have never had such a difficult time figuring out the question. I usually see how the correct answers work, but this one just didn't make sense. I think it's the hardest question I have ever seen on this test.


I am so glad you bumped this to the top because this was killing me, but this is the best explanation. Money does not exist, so it goes away if we don't believe in it. So something that DOES exist would stay around no matter how we feel about it.

User avatar
quasi-stellar
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby quasi-stellar » Tue May 04, 2010 6:06 pm

WWAD wrote:
Atlas LSAT Teacher wrote:Yeah, it's a tricky one. I agree with The Lucky One that this is not well-treated through diagramming. In general I find diagramming hurts more students than it helps.

As you're reading missing assumption questions, your mind should be constantly looking for the gap. The conclusion is that money does not exist. The proof: we could make it disappear if we all stopped believing in it. What's not said is why this proves it doesn't exist. Maybe things can disappear when we stop believing in it but still be considered to exist right now (or perhaps existing can continue once you disappear? invisible ink, for example). Regardless, in this problem, there's an assumption that this phenomenon proves something is not real, and so we're assuming that a real thing would react differently to us not believing in it.

(A) fills the gap quite nicely, while (B) doesn't help the argument since it would only show that money does not exist if it was proven that we have a mistaken belief about money. BTW, the fact that we're mistaken about money doesn't count as the mistaken belief, as that would be circular and, more importantly, the conclusion isn't actually that there's a mistaken belief about money, just that it doesn't exist (it's never explicitly mentioned that we all think it does exist).

An analogous argument might be: I know that Patty is kind because if we all teased her, she would cry. For that argument to be drawn properly we'd need to know that our kindness litmus test really works: that if she were not kind and we teased her, she would not cry.

I hope that clears it up.

- Noah

Wow, I have never had such a difficult time figuring out the question. I usually see how the correct answers work, but this one just didn't make sense. I think it's the hardest question I have ever seen on this test.


I am so glad you bumped this to the top because this was killing me, but this is the best explanation. Money does not exist, so it goes away if we don't believe in it. So something that DOES exist would stay around no matter how we feel about it.


Yep, thats it. It was just difficult to make that kind of connection at first.
Learning on :lol:

User avatar
Atlas LSAT Teacher
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:18 am

Re: PT 46, Section 3 (LR) #24

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Tue May 04, 2010 6:36 pm

WWAD wrote:I am so glad you bumped this to the top because this was killing me, but this is the best explanation. Money does not exist, so it goes away if we don't believe in it. So something that DOES exist would stay around no matter how we feel about it.

Nice job figuring it out -- it really is a tough one! A colleague of mine explained it differently -- if you're not ready to let go: http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/preptes ... r-f89.html

Good luck!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mintme, MSNbot Media, somedeadman, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests