PT 70, Sec 4, Q 12 Forum

[Christine (MLSAT)]

(B) attacks the assumption of the argument and therefore weakens, (E) doesn't address the assumption, end of story.

answer choice (B) attacks which assumption?

the argument does not assume that the water is distributed equally among regions.

answer choice (E) attacks the argument assumption that the water demand is not going to grow exponentially by suggesting that some elements that constitute the total water demand (agricultural water demand and industrial water demand) grow at different rates.

Just because two pieces of demand grow at different rates from one another does not make it any more (or less) likely that demand as a whole will grow exponentially in relation to population size.

[azizbaba]

Just because two pieces of demand grow at different rates from one another does not make it any more (or less) likely that demand as a whole will grow exponentially in relation to population size.

Just because some regions vary in how much water they can supply does not necessarily increase or decrease the likelihood that a human in the near future will have a difficulty to meet his/her water demand.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

Just because two pieces of demand grow at different rates from one another does not make it any more (or less) likely that demand as a whole will grow exponentially in relation to population size.

Just because some regions vary in how much water they can supply does not necessarily increase or decrease the likelihood that a human in the near future will have a difficulty to meet his/her water demand.

No, not on it's own it doesn't. But what it does is diminish the value of the premise as evidence for the conclusion. (E) doesn't touch that.

[azizbaba]

But what it does is diminish the value of the premise as evidence for the conclusion.

diminish the value of which premise?

It doesn't diminish anything by its own. The argument does not rely on the assumption that water supply is distributed equally among regions. (B) just brings a new fact. Maybe the current unequal distribution will enhance meeting water demand in the future. Based on the question information we don't know. In fact the argument talks only about humankind but (B) talks about Earth's population which can include all animals and plants.

[Jeffort]

But what it does is diminish the value of the premise as evidence for the conclusion.

diminish the value of which premise?

It doesn't diminish anything by its own. The argument does not rely on the assumption that water supply is distributed equally among regions. (B) just brings a new fact. Maybe the current unequal distribution will enhance meeting water demand in the future. Based on the question information we don't know. In fact the argument talks only about humankind but (B) talks about Earth's population which can include all animals and plants.

The argument DOES rely on the assumption that plentiful supply on the planet = available in adequate amounts for more humans that need it NO MATTER where population expands and that it's available WHEN they need it. The conclusion is wide in scope about shortages ANYWHERE. It's a blanket conclusion that there won't be ANY shortages, implicitly meaning NOWHERE. (B) points out that there could be at least one region on earth where there may not be enough water for local demand, hence the possibility of at least one shortage in the near future somewhere. This weakens the blanket conclusion that there will not be any shortages. If the conclusion was qualified to say no shortages will occur in currently populated areas instead of concluding universally about planet-wide, the assumption and reasoning would be different but that's not the argument we have.

Since the argument fails to discuss distribution of the water and where the plentiful supply is actually located on the planet and gives no evidence to establish that the supply is readily available/accessible everywhere on the planet , it assumes that there won't be any distribution issues/problems involved in getting water from wherever the supply is located to wherever population grows (and thus would need more water for the extra people). The reasoning is pretty clear, it jumps from the major premise -HUGE water supply- to therefore no potential shortages in the near future if population continues to grow, thereby assuming nothing in between those two things, like distribution of the water to people that need it, will happen that could result in some people not having enough water available for their needs wherever on the planet they live. The CR brings in new information the argument didn't take into account that is relevant to the issue of people actually having enough water available to them where they live.

You are failing to include common sense in your reasoning. Planet earth is big, plentiful supply of a resource to fill a need doesn't guarantee the supply is near the geographic region where people need it. The argument fails to consider this important aspect of common sense reality. Human starvation and famine is still a huge problem on the planet NOW in 2013. There is plenty of food supply on the planet to feed everyone. In fact tons of food is wasted every year. Why are people still starving in Africa and other places? Because the plentiful supply of food IS NOT near where they live! People have to have physical proximity to a resource to get and use it, they cannot get water through mail order, amazon, Fedex, through the internet, etc. There's plenty of food, just not anywhere close to where they can get their human hands on it to put it into their mouths! Same thing with water, if you don't have any available to drink where you physically are when you are thirsty, you have a water shortage, even though there a trillions of gallons sitting in a tank or something a few thousand miles away. You have to have water within arms reach to be able to use/drink it. A common sense assumption you have to factor in that should go without saying is that need for water is not something you can delay and fill later. If you are thirsty and there is no water immediately available to drink, you'll die in a couple of days if you don't get any right away. If it takes a few days to pipe/transport water to where there are thirsty people, they will have a shortage while they wait for delivery and could die while they wait!

Your line of reasoning to argue against (B) and in favor of (E) shows that you have a big misconception of how LSAT LR questions and basic logical reasoning works with assumptions and all that. You really need to work on LR fundamentals, or you could just keep arguing with the test and try to say LSAC is wrong and be frustrated, your choice.

[azizbaba]

You are failing to include common sense in your reasoning.

"common sense" can constitute many subjective presumptions. Your comma sense may be totally different than another group of people. The right answer shouldn't rely on "common sense". Answer choice (B) just tells that that availability of fresh water supply vary among regions to meet the needs of Earth's population. Do they vary also to meet the needs of humankind (Earth's population - plants and animals)? I don't know. Is that a bad thing that they vary? I don't know.

Your line of reasoning to argue against (B) and in favor of (E) shows that you have a big misconception of how LSAT LR questions and basic logical reasoning works with assumptions and all that. You really need to work on LR fundamentals, or you could just keep arguing with the test and try to say LSAC is wrong and be frustrated, your choice.

I don't think (E) is the right answer. I was just trying to show that it's equally as good/bad as (b). This question is the only LR question in PT70 that I don't agree with LSAC's choice.

[dosto]

.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

azizbaba, I think it's important to decide whether you are more interested in trying to figure out why (B) is right, or whether you are more interested in trying to prove that you won't be swayed. Only one of those two paths will lead you to a higher LSAT score.

If you are interested in the former, perhaps it would be helpful to think of it like this:

If every region had the same access to water, then knowing the total water supply would mean that we knew something significant about each region's water supply. So, using the information about the total water supply would have a certain weight in supporting the broad, blanket conclusion that we're not going to have any water shortages soon. It's far from perfect, but there's some support there.

But, if there's a wild variance between regions, then knowing the total water supply isn't particularly helpful anymore to that conclusion. The total water supply could be epic, but that tells us nothing about any particular region. Whether the conclusion is true or not, the premise is now pretty unhelpful in supporting it.

Whether (B) is true or not affects the usefulness of the premise in attempting to support the conclusion.

(E) doesn't do any of that. If industrial water supply increases faster, slower, or at the same rate as agricultural water supply, it just doesn't matter. It would be like if I told you that I had a fridge full of desserts, and I concluded I was unlikely to run out anytime soon. It doesn't weaken that conclusion to say that I eat cake faster than I eat pie (or vice versa).




And I'm completely serious about deciding what's most important to you. I see students all the time who have wasted inordinate time and energy trying to prove the LSAT wrong. It's a losing battle every time. The faster you can accept that the LSAT is correct, and that there must be something wrong with *your* view that you have to adjust, the faster you can figure out what that is, and actually fix it.

[azizbaba]

doesn't do any of that. If industrial water supply increases faster, slower, or at the same rate as agricultural water supply, it just doesn't matter. It would be like if I told you that I had a fridge full of desserts, and I concluded I was unlikely to run out anytime soon. It doesn't weaken that conclusion to say that I eat cake faster than I eat pie (or vice versa).

Answer choice (B) is like as if you told me that one floor of your fridge had more foods than another to satisfy all your family food needs, and concluded that it would affect the likelihood of your food shortage.

[bp shinners]

(B) attacks the assumption of the argument and therefore weakens, (E) doesn't address the assumption, end of story.

answer choice (B) attacks which assumption?

It attacks the assumption of the argument.

Argument breakdown:
There is enough water on Earth for everyone.
_______________________________________
Conclusion - Everyone will have water to drink.

The argument assumes that if there's enough water for everyone, everyone will get some water.

My correct answer is going to say that this assumption might be wrong.

(B) does that - it says that the water is unevenly distributed, so the fact that there's enough for everyone doesn't tell me whether everyone will get some. The distribution of water necessarily impacts people's access to water.

(E) doesn't - it talks about how water use is allocated. That has nothing to do with people getting the water, especially since it just says the percentage of both is growing, one more than the other - that could be from 1% to 2%, and .5% to .6%.

the argument does not assume that the water is distributed equally among regions.

Nope, but it assumes that there being enough water guarantees everyone has access to it. Saying that it's not evenly distributed calls that into question.

answer choice (E) attacks the argument assumption that the water demand is not going to grow exponentially by suggesting that some elements that constitute the total water demand (agricultural water demand and industrial water demand) grow at different rates.

The argument doesn't assume that water demand is not going to grow exponentially - even if it did, the argument still works.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

doesn't do any of that. If industrial water supply increases faster, slower, or at the same rate as agricultural water supply, it just doesn't matter. It would be like if I told you that I had a fridge full of desserts, and I concluded I was unlikely to run out anytime soon. It doesn't weaken that conclusion to say that I eat cake faster than I eat pie (or vice versa).

Answer choice (B) is like as if you told me that one floor of your fridge had more foods than another to satisfy all your family food needs, and concluded that it would affect the likelihood of your food shortage.

If there was a possibility that not every person could access every shelf equally? Then yes, in fact, that would affect the likelihood of any particular person going hungry.

At the very least, it means the fact that there's plenty of food in the fridge is less significant as support than it might otherwise have been.

Given any thought to what I said above? Because it doesn't sound like you are trying to figure out why (B) is correct. It sounds like you are still just trying to prove the LSAT wrong (which it isn't here).

[azizbaba]

B does that - it says that the water is unevenly distributed,

B doesn't say that. Even by B conditions, the amount of fresh water available to meet the need of Earth's *human population may not vary significantly from region to region.

[neprep]

If you're trying to say that (E) tell us that 'water demand is a non-linear function', then the variables involved are 1) agricultural water demand and 2) industrial water demand. Neither of those is population.

agricultural and industrial water demands vary based on the population size. the answer choice (e) does not explicitly say that, same as answer choice (b) that does not explicitly say that the regions are not connected.

An example of answer choice (E) implication would be:

agricultural water demand= x^10 + m
industrial water demand=12x + n
total water demand= x^ 10 + 12X + K
(x is the population size)

LJL

Also never before has the warning "You should not make assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage" been more apt than it is for the OP.

[azizbaba]

If there was a possibility that not every person could access every shelf equally?

The 'access' point is the same presumption that you take for granted to justify (B)
Also, in your fridge analogy, the argument is about you not any other particular persons. In this question the argument is about "Earth's human population" but (B) discusses something about "Earth's population".

Given any thought to what I said above? Because it doesn't sound like you are trying to figure out why (B) is correct. It sounds like you are still just trying to prove the LSAT wrong (which it isn't here).

My intention should be irrelevant here. It sounds that you are trying to justify your LSAC's sacred answer choice without acknowledging the problem with this question.

[neprep]

My intention should be irrelevant here. It sounds that you are trying to justify your LSAC's sacred answer choice without acknowledging the problem with this question.

Actually, your intention is not irrelevant. This particular forum isn't to argue ad nauseam about why the LSAT is wrong. What Christine, Shinners, and Jeffort have done is assume that your intention is to understand the test better, and have tried to explain the answer choice with that assumption in mind.

If your intention is not to improve your score and understand why you're wrong, and you just want argue about the answer choice, then I suggest you take your recalcitrance elsewhere.

You can send your queries to the LSAT Test Development and Research Group (lsatts@lsac.org) and sort it out with LSAC, write to the Association of Test Publishers, or even write to the American Bar Association complaining about why the LSAT is a terrible test and should be dropped as a requirement for admission at ABA-approved law schools. Hyperbole intended.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

My intention should be irrelevant here. It sounds that you are trying to justify your LSAC's sacred answer choice without acknowledging the problem with this question.

There is no problem with this question. The problem is in your reasoning. But until you accept that fact, you don't stand a chance of figuring out what that problem actually is.

The process of studying for the LSAT is a complex psychological exercise. Improvement requires self-awareness and the ability and willingness to engage in some serious introspection on your thought process. People that smile and nod and pretend to understand the right answer when they don't will not improve. But people that insist their incorrect reasoning is solid and are unwilling to entertain the idea they might be wrong also don't improve.

Your reasoning is wrong here, but you are very committed to the idea that it's right. That's not going to net you anything, in the end.

[retaking23]

LOL. I love the back and forth on this thread. OP went all gangsta and brought functions in.

My two cents:

Stimulus says there is A LOT more supply than we are currently using. Therefore, it is not the case that we have to change population growth in near future to prevent water shortage.

To weaken this, we need to disturb the connection between stimulus and conclusion.

A) Who cares? Doesn't affect connection w/ water. Eliminate.
B) Water and population connection is clearly present. Leave for now.
C) Same as B. Leave for now.
D) Eventually is compatible w/ argument which narrowed its conclusion to the "near future." Eliminate.
E) Who cares? Doesn't affect connection w/ population. Eliminate.

Left with B and C.

B does weaken the argument. It implicitly allows for the stimulus about supply, but brings up a new issue. Looking back, the stimulus is about Earth's supply of fresh water, that is, its TOTAL fresh water supply. B is bringing up the idea that there might be "significant" variation across regions which brings up the possibility of some regions having less supply than others. Granted, we don't know how those regions' populations compare relative to other regions, but, the mere fact that this supply issue has been demonstrated to not be all we should concern ourselves about weakens the stimulus' connection to the argument.

Looking at C again, the argument is totally fine with it because the argument implies that there is no water crisis coming in the near future and, so the author of argument would say, there is no need for all of Earth's population to adopt conservation methods. Eliminate.

OP: you bring up a lot of interesting thoughts but, ultimately, you are misguided. The LSAT is testing for a very specific type of logical reasoning. You may want to consider going through a Cambridge packet and looking at other strengthen and weaken questions to see more of these same types of questions. The LSAC is testing you. You are not testing the LSAC. Their logic trumps yours as far as this test is concerned. Get with it homie and these answers become a lot more palatable.

[azizbaba]

There is no problem with this question. The problem is in your reasoning. But until you accept that fact, you don't stand a chance of figuring out what that problem actually is.

Christine (MLSAT), I really feel sorry for your students. Just because you could not fully convince me with your explanation, you started to personal attack and repeating your sentimental nonsense.

In this question, the argument is about "Earth's human population" but (B) discusses something about "Earth's population". (B) is out of scope, we don't care about regions ability to meet the demand of "Earth's Population", we care about "Earth's human population" as it is mentioned in the original argument.

[dosto]

.

[retaking23]

There is no problem with this question. The problem is in your reasoning. But until you accept that fact, you don't stand a chance of figuring out what that problem actually is.

I really feel sorry for your students. Just because you could not fully convince me with your explanation, you started to personal attack and repeating your sentimental nonsense.

In this question, the argument is about "Earth's human population" but (B) discusses something about "Earth's population". (B) is out of scope, we don't care about regions ability to meet the demand of "Earth's Population", we care about "Earth's human population" as it is mentioned in the original argument.

LOLOLOL. Keep at it OP. That's the spirit.

Now, and just to read what you write back, the argument concludes with "unless population growth trends change" and not "unless HUMAN population growth trends change" and so, if you're going to be all nickel and dime about this and say humans not animals, you need to allow for it here too.

E doesn't even bring up population. It's not even in the ballpark of this argument to merit consideration. Ballpark being the resultant of water issue and population issue. B is not perfect. Few LSAT answer choices ever are. But, it is most perfect among the other ones.

I'm actually starting to wonder if OP is being serious of just trolling at this point.

I think he started trolling when he brought in his own hypothetical functions and that linearity/non-linearity talk. Imagine Newton or Leibniz whipping out calculus to find the area of a 2 by 2 square.

[bp shinners]

B does that - it says that the water is unevenly distributed,

B doesn't say that. Even by B conditions, the amount of fresh water available to meet the need of Earth's *human population may not vary significantly from region to region.

(B) - "The amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's population varies significantly from region to region."

The language of (B) says exactly what you say it doesn't say.

So I think you've become so convinced that this question is wrong that you're not reading the wording of it correctly. Take a look at it again - you simply can't argue that it doesn't say it varies significantly/is unevenly distributed.

[neprep]

There is no problem with this question. The problem is in your reasoning. But until you accept that fact, you don't stand a chance of figuring out what that problem actually is.

Christine (MLSAT), I really feel sorry for your students. Just because you could not fully convince me with your explanation, you started to personal attack and repeating your sentimental nonsense.

In this question, the argument is about "Earth's human population" but (B) discusses something about "Earth's population". (B) is out of scope, we don't care about regions ability to meet the demand of "Earth's Population", we care about "Earth's human population" as it is mentioned in the original argument.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/personal
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attack
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentimental

HTH

[azizbaba]

(B) - "The amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's population varies significantly from region to region."

The language of (B) says exactly what you say it doesn't say.

So I think you've become so convinced that this question is wrong that you're not reading the wording of it correctly. Take a look at it again - you simply can't argue that it doesn't say it varies significantly/is unevenly distributed

.

Given by B conditions, that is about the needs of Earth's population (which includes animals and plants), the amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's HUMAN population still may not vary significantly from region to region.

[Otunga]

(B) - "The amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's population varies significantly from region to region."

The language of (B) says exactly what you say it doesn't say.

So I think you've become so convinced that this question is wrong that you're not reading the wording of it correctly. Take a look at it again - you simply can't argue that it doesn't say it varies significantly/is unevenly distributed

.

Given by B conditions, that is about the needs of Earth's population (which includes animals and plants), the amount of fresh water available to meet the needs of Earth's HUMAN population still may not vary significantly from region to region.

But you're just being overly demanding of the right answer. All the other answers demonstrably suck. There may be an extremely slight term mismatch in B, but there are many more things wrong with the other answers.

[dosto]

.