First off, thank you for the amazing format in which you posted these questions. It makes it so much easier for me to look them up and provide specific help for your ACs.
1TLStudent wrote:
PT 13 Section 4 Question 9 (Correct: C. I chose: None. Main issue with correct AC: What combination of factors are they referring to?)
In short, everything else.
The stimulus tells me that info processing tech is the single most important factor in determining wealth. That sounds strong, but let's think about what it means for a minute. The single most important factor means that it is more important than any other single factor. That doesn't, however, tell me that it's actually important. If we break down what factors into a country's wealth on a pie chart, the biggest slice of the pie has to be info processing tech since it's the single most important factor. But if there are 1,000 factors, info processing tech could make up 1% of the pie, still be the largest slice, but be absolutely drowned out by all the other factors. It's these unnamed factors that are referred to in the answer choice.
Meta point - comparative language ('most important') seems strong, but might actually be quite weak.
PT 16 Section 2 Question 22 (Correct: E. I chose: B. Main issue with correct AC: What implications?)
Two big things here:
1) The Director recognizes that Ms. Tours deserves the raise
2) The Director has a goal here, and that's to maintain the dignity of the merit-based raise system. That is more important to him than promoting the right people.
When someone has a defined goal, that's always going to be important to the answer. So here, the Director thinks the best way to reach that goal is to not give a raise to Ms. Tours because then people would think the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak. But that's an exclusivity fallacy - it might serve the Director's goal better to raise Ms. Tours' salary since she deserves it. If a person who even the Director admits should get a raise doesn't, that calls into question the integrity of the system. That's the implication being talked about here.
For B, he doesn't characterize what she says as mere complaining. First, he says that she's right. Second, he says that others might view it as mere complaining. There's a difference between that and him calling it mere complaining himself.
Meta point: If someone has a goal, and they pick a means of getting there, the answer on the LSAT is almost always that there might be a better way of reaching that goal than the one defined.
PT 22 Section 2 Question 25 (Correct: B. I chose: D [I have a tendency to chose "1/2 right 1/2 wrong" ACs when the correct AC sounds wrong because I work best through deductive reasoning where I find most plausible AC by crossing out wrong ones first]. Main issue with correct AC: what are the sufficient and necessary conditions AC refers to and why are they sufficient and necessary?)
Alright, so let's look at the two pieces of poll data we have:
1) 50%: If indicted of a crime, then an elected official should resign.
2) 35%: If an elected official should resign, then they must have been convicted of a crime.
We've got clear conditional language in there ('if' in the first in the original; 'only if' in the second in the original). Meta tip - when you can diagram the stimulus of a flaw question, it's better than even money that
a guys only doing it's a sufficient/necessary fallacy.
My conclusion from these two pieces of data is that more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe they should resign if convicted. However, I don't know how many people believe that they should resign if convicted - I only know how many people think they should resign ONLY if convicted. That changes it from a sufficient condition to a necessary/required condition, and that's what's mixed up in this question.
Had the second survey said, "whereas 35% believe that elected officials should resign if they are convicted", then I wouldn't have this fallacy. The inclusion of the word 'only' before 'if' completely changes how that statement reads, and makes my conclusion invalid.
