Blueprint LSAT Prep's ongoing ask-an-instructor extravaganza Forum

[mymrh1]

BPlaura, thank you for your help so far!

PT45 S1 Q23

The correct answer choice (C) seems to involve to negate "Only know some of the consequences" to get "all of the consequences." However, I think when you negate "some are," you would get "none are." Am I missing something?

[BPlaura]

Well, this question is asking for a sufficient assumption, aka an assumption that makes the argument perfect. The negation test is only used for necessary assumptions; here, we just need to complete the argument.

The argument says:
action ---> can't know all consequences
morally right ---> best consequences
Therefore
action ---> can't know if morally right

Let's take the contrapositive of the second premise. Now we have:
action ---> can't know all consequences
not best consequences --> not morally right
Therefore
action ---> can't know if morally right

There's a jump between the first and second premise, so the assumption is:
can't know all consequences ---> not best consequences, or
best consequences ---> know all consequences

That's what (C) gives us, which is why it's correct. But it seems like your main misunderstanding was treating this as though it were a necessary assumption question. Keep in mind that if a prompt says "the conclusion follows IF which of the following is assumed," that means that you're adding something in to make the conclusion follow logically, which means that you're trying to find the sufficient assumption.

[lsat_hopeful]

Can you possibly explain PT71 S5 Q2 - I am having trouble understanding why the correct answer is E as opposed to D. My reasoning for choosing D is primarily based on L45-48 and L49-51. What are the characteristics that are displayed by the canvas described in answer choice E that exemplify Gilliams style/work?

Thank you.

(At an attempt to answer my own question, I can see how answer choice D may not fit in with Gilliam's preference against direct representation (L56), but I'm interested to hear any other explanations/perspectives.)

[BPlaura]

Can you possibly explain PT71 S5 Q2 - I am having trouble understanding why the correct answer is E as opposed to D. My reasoning for choosing D is primarily based on L45-48 and L49-51. What are the characteristics that are displayed by the canvas described in answer choice E that exemplify Gilliams style/work?

Thank you.

(At an attempt to answer my own question, I can see how answer choice D may not fit in with Gilliam's preference against direct representation (L56), but I'm interested to hear any other explanations/perspectives.)

Let's go through the things the passage tells us about Gilliam's work:
1. L8-11 describes the Color Field style, of which Gilliam was a member, as evolving from "minimally representational abstractions... to totally nonrepresentational, simplified works of bright colors."
2. L29 talks about his impatience with a straightforward, literal approach - wants a more expressive artistic form
3. L39 - not explicitly political
4. L45-48 - unsupported canvas

You said you picked (D) in part because of lines 45-48, and it's great that you zeroed in on those lines - the passage tells us that he suspended canvases from balconies in some cases. But the passage also strongly emphasizes that he painted abstract, nonrepresentational art, which is (as you said) what makes (D) incorrect.

(E), on the other hand, mentions the folded canvas, which we know he did. It also mentions him dripping and splashing paint - lines 39-41 talk about how his "early experiments involved pouring paint... onto canvases." So (E) is in line with the techniques described in the passage.

[lsat_hopeful]

the passage also strongly emphasizes that he painted abstract, nonrepresentational art, which is (as you said) what makes (D) incorrect.

(E), on the other hand, mentions the folded canvas, which we know he did. It also mentions him dripping and splashing paint - lines 39-41 talk about how his "early experiments involved pouring paint... onto canvases." So (E) is in line with the techniques described in the passage.

Thank you for the thorough explanation!

[AAyala]

Greetings!

I took the BP online course (which is amazing by the way) for the June 2013 LSAT. I want to reenroll to retake the upcoming June LSAT and was wondering of the online materials and books are the same? Thanks!

[BPlaura]

Glad to hear you enjoyed the online course! As far as I know, yes, the online materials and books are the same. There were whispers of updating our books in 2014, but to my knowledge that hasn't been finalized yet, and I don't think they would make any drastic changes anyway.

[ma_lsat]

Hi BP instructors!
First of all, thanks for holding office hours online. This is extremely helpful! I'm currently taking the online video course before I start my live classes in a couple of months. I'm going over lesson 4 right now and ran into a logical reasoning question that I would like to clarify. In lesson 4, under the Implication Review, number 6, the correct answer is C.
I am a bit confused, because I thought that in this kind of situation (A -> B and A -> C), no valid conclusion could be drawn and that to conclude that B -> C would be invalid. However, does this mean that in such a case, we can always validly conclude a 'some' relationship between the two (just never an 'all')?

Thanks so much in advance for your help!

[BPlaura]

Greetings and salutations! I'll be checking in til 4:30 or so.

[BPlaura]

I am a bit confused, because I thought that in this kind of situation (A -> B and A -> C), no valid conclusion could be drawn and that to conclude that B -> C would be invalid. However, does this mean that in such a case, we can always validly conclude a 'some' relationship between the two (just never an 'all')?

Thanks so much in advance for your help!

Hello! Hope you're enjoying the online class so far (and looking forward to the live one)! Just a note that you may want to delete the text of the question from your post - technically you're not allowed to "reproduce" LSAT questions without paying for em.

To answer your question: In Lesson 3 you learned about combining quantifiers. (Fun stuff, right?) Recall how to combine a "Some" and an "All" statement:

A -> B
A (some) C
----------
B (some) C

A "Some" statement is very weak, which is why it's so hard to draw valid conclusions from a "some" statement. What that means is that you can draw the same conclusion if you have a stronger version of that statement - so if, in the above example, it was "A (most) C" or "A -> C," you could draw the same conclusion!

That's what we're doing with this bankers and lawyers question. We've got
B -> A
B -> ~L

As you said above, it would be invalid to conclude that all athletes are not lawyers (or vice-versa). However, we do know that there are at least some athletes who are not lawyers, because every single banker is an athlete and every single banker also is not a lawyer.

A -> B
A -> C
-------
B (some) C

Make sense?

[ma_lsat]

Yes, that makes total sense. Thanks so much Laura!!
Also, thanks for the heads up. I just deleted the question.

[mymrh1]

PT 71 S3 (LR) Q23, I am not sure why (E) is correct. Also, I am not sure what my thought process should be to see (E) is correct. I do know other choices are even worse. Thanks!

[BPlaura]

Hi gang! I won't have access to a computer on Friday, so I'm having office hours on Tuesday and Thursday this week. I'll be hanging out til about 4:30 today!

[BPlaura]

PT 71 S3 (LR) Q23, I am not sure why (E) is correct. Also, I am not sure what my thought process should be to see (E) is correct. I do know other choices are even worse. Thanks!

Hi!

Let's summarize what the stimulus says here:
- Most malpractice suits arise patients see doctors as negligent or careless
- Doctors are less compassionate/sometimes rude
- Lawsuits could be avoided if doctors learned to listen better
- Economic incentives encourage doctors to be rude

This is a ~MBT question, so we know to look for an answer choice that is most likely to be true - but not necessarily 100% valid. Generally for MBT/~MBT you'd want to focus on the strongest part of the argument; here the strongest part is where it says "lawsuits could be avoided...," so that's actually not discussed in the right answer. So, you're just looking to find the answer choice that has the most support in the stimulus.

A) says that the economic incentives are the main cause of doctors being sued. Firstly, the "main cause" part is very strong and would be hard to prove. Secondly, we know most suits arise because patients see doctors as careless, and we know that economic incentives encourage rudeness, but that doesn't mean that the economic incentives are the main reason for the rudeness. In fact, the stimulus lists other factors that lead doctors to be perceived as rude. So it's too far of a leap in logic to say that the economic incentives themselves are responsible for most of the suits.

B) says that the economic incentives encourage doctors to see medicine as a science rather than an art. We know that that is how "many" doctors see medicine, but again, there's no indication that the economic incentives encourage this perception.

C) says that most malpractice suits are unjustified. The argument says nothing about how to determine whether the suits are justified, so there's no support at all for this answer choice.

D) says the scientific outlook should be replaced by a completely new approach to medicine. Again, no support at all for that - the argument doesn't make any recommendations about what should be done.

So, we come to (E), which says that doctors' actions foster the perception that they don't care about their patients. We know that patients perceive their doctors as being careless/negligent and that doctors, for various reasons, are sometimes rude to their patients. So while the argument never specifically states that being rude/harried/patronizing/etc leads to the perception of being uncaring, it is strongly supported by the argument.

Does that help at all? The key is that it's a ~MBT question so it's okay to make some (warranted/supported) inferences.

[mymrh1]

PT 71 S3 (LR) Q23, I am not sure why (E) is correct. Also, I am not sure what my thought process should be to see (E) is correct. I do know other choices are even worse. Thanks!

B) says that the economic incentives encourage doctors to see medicine as a science rather than an art. We know that that is how "many" doctors see medicine, but again, there's no indication that the economic incentives encourage this perception.

So, we come to (E), which says that doctors' actions foster the perception that they don't care about their patients. We know that patients perceive their doctors as being careless/negligent and that doctors, for various reasons, are sometimes rude to their patients. So while the argument never specifically states that being rude/harried/patronizing/etc leads to the perception of being uncaring, it is strongly supported by the argument.

Does that help at all? The key is that it's a ~MBT question so it's okay to make some (warranted/supported) inferences.

Thanks for your detailed explanations!!

However, after reading what you said about (E), I start to feel like (B) could be correct in a similar fashion.

The economic incentives encourage doctors to treat patients rudely. With (E), being rude fosters the perception that doctors don't care about their patients. The perception then eventually leads to doctors' belief (regard the medicine as a science). So with (E) being correct, (B) seems to be supported as well?

[BPlaura]

The perception then eventually leads to doctors' belief (regard the medicine as a science).

Well, not quite. The argument just says that doctors now see medicine as a science rather than as an art, and as a result of that belief they are less compassionate. It doesn't give any clues as to where the belief comes from. That's why (B) still doesn't follow. Make sense?

[BPlaura]

Greetings and salutations. I'll be checking this thread until 6 or 7 (and later tonight as well), so hit me up with any questions. And to those taking the LSAT on Saturday, good luck!

[BPlaura]

The weather outside is frightful, but TLS is so delightful!

Taking questions til 5.

[BPlaura]

Hey y'all. Chillin' and eatin' Cheez Its til 5.

[WaltGrace83]

Hi Laura,

I am looking at PT10 S1 Q3

Sally: I cannot study at a university with an alcohol problem
→
If nothing done about the alcohol problem then I'll have to transfer to a school without fraternities

Initially I was thinking that this problem would focus on the connection between the alcohol problem and the fraternities, something like "if a university doesn't have fraternities then it won't have an alcohol problem." What is going on between (B) and (E)? I got the right answer but I just feel like this whole question is very odd/weak/strange, i dunno.

I know this is PT10 but I think I can definitely still learn something from it.

[BPlaura]

Yeah, I would've anticipated the same sort of answer for this question - something about the connection between alcohol problems and fraternities, since that's obviously a pretty big leap. (And I totally agree that there are things to be learned from the early PTs - they're not completely representative of the modern test, but they are substantially similar!)

So let's talk about (B). We know we're looking for a necessary assumption. However, Sally's not actually assuming that nothing will be done about the alcohol problem - she just says that if nothing is done, she'll have to transfer.

As for (E), if we negate it, it would say that there are no universities without alcohol problems. If that's the case, since Sally already said she can't study at a university with an alcohol problem, she's going to have a really hard time finding somewhere to transfer to. So if we negate (E), the conclusion doesn't make any sense - why is she talking about transferring to a place without a fraternity, when there are no schools without alcohol problems?!

Were you thrown off by (E) talking about alcohol problems rather than fraternities? This is a question where it's important to remember the context. Sally wants to transfer because she can't study at a university with an alcohol problem, and she's assuming that fraternities are linked to alcohol problems. So it's still necessary that she can find someplace without alcohol problems in order for transferring to be a logical move.

Does that help?

[WaltGrace83]

Yeah, I would've anticipated the same sort of answer for this question - something about the connection between alcohol problems and fraternities, since that's obviously a pretty big leap. (And I totally agree that there are things to be learned from the early PTs - they're not completely representative of the modern test, but they are substantially similar!)

So let's talk about (B). We know we're looking for a necessary assumption. However, Sally's not actually assuming that nothing will be done about the alcohol problem - she just says that if nothing is done, she'll have to transfer.

As for (E), if we negate it, it would say that there are no universities without alcohol problems. If that's the case, since Sally already said she can't study at a university with an alcohol problem, she's going to have a really hard time finding somewhere to transfer to. So if we negate (E), the conclusion doesn't make any sense - why is she talking about transferring to a place without a fraternity, when there are no schools without alcohol problems?!

Were you thrown off by (E) talking about alcohol problems rather than fraternities? This is a question where it's important to remember the context. Sally wants to transfer because she can't study at a university with an alcohol problem, and she's assuming that fraternities are linked to alcohol problems. So it's still necessary that she can find someplace without alcohol problems in order for transferring to be a logical move.

Does that help?

Well it just seems that it attacks the conclusion (transferring) rather than the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Clearly, this is the best answer choice yet I feel that there shouldn't be a "best" - it should only be "correct" and "incorrect." I guess what it is also tripping me up is the phrase "have to." This question and answer choice combo would make total sense if it said "...thus, unless something is done about the alcohol problem, I will be able to transfer to a university where there are no fraternities." This would make (E) fit quite nicely.

[BPlaura]

Well, keep in mind that for necessary assumptions, we're not "attacking" anything - we're just trying to see whether negating the answer choice makes it so that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Can you explain your objection to the phrase "have to"? I'm not sure I totally follow. The way I read the argument is that she says she can't study at a place with alcohol problems; since she can't study in those conditions, unless they're changed, she'll have to transfer somewhere where she can study. She's assuming that there *is* such a place where she can study, which is how (E) fits in.

[WaltGrace83]

Well, keep in mind that for necessary assumptions, we're not "attacking" anything - we're just trying to see whether negating the answer choice makes it so that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Can you explain your objection to the phrase "have to"? I'm not sure I totally follow. The way I read the argument is that she says she can't study at a place with alcohol problems; since she can't study in those conditions, unless they're changed, she'll have to transfer somewhere where she can study. She's assuming that there *is* such a place where she can study, which is how (E) fits in.

Perhaps I am just overthinking the question by making it much harder than it actually is. Am I crazy for thinking that this is a very unsatisfying answer though? I found the same issue with PT12-S1-Q2, almost verbatim. In this question, we are talking about how adults cannot represent the interests of the adolescence and, therefore, giving adolescents the right to vote is the only way these interests will be represented. Once again, I see that (C) is the "best" answer by saying that adolescence should have their interests represented but even if we negate it, it doesn't really make the conclusion that "getting the right to vote is ONLY way to represent the adolescent rights" does not follow. Do you see what I mean?

This problem is not something I routinely come across but I just feel that every once and a while in an early PT there will be answers that just seem "off."

[BPlaura]

Are you crazy? No. Are you overthinking it? Probably.

Once again, I see that (C) is the "best" answer by saying that adolescence should have their interests represented but even if we negate it, it doesn't really make the conclusion that "getting the right to vote is ONLY way to represent the adolescent rights" does not follow. Do you see what I mean?

Be careful with this one. The conclusion isn't that getting the right to vote is the only way to represent adolescents' interests; the conclusion is the first sentence, that adults have the right to vote and therefore so should adolescents. Why should adolescents get the right to vote? Because adults can't represent their interests, whereas they can represent their own interests.

That's why (C) works - if we negate it, it would say that adolescents shouldn't have their rights represented, in which case there's no reason that they should be able to vote.

So anyway, back to the original question about Sally and her opposition to schools with alcohol problems. I don't see any problem or strangeness with the correct answer here. Her reason for thinking she might have to transfer is because she can't study at a school with alcohol problems; however, if there are no schools without alcohol problems, then transferring isn't going to help.