. Forum

[Colorado10]

.

[matt@atlaslsat]

I don't have a copy purchased from Amazon or the LSAC. My copy reads the same as your copy and I too believe that there is a typo in the print. Otherwise answer choice (C) would not strengthen the argument. Yet answer choice (C) is correct, so there must be a typo in both our copies.

I hope this alleviates some of your probable frustration.

[Colorado10]

Thanks for your response

I was going crazy trying to understand (C). Everything would make sense if "consistent" was changed to "inconsistent"

[LSAT All Star]

I do not think this is a typo. No matter which way you read it, the meaning is the same as is the cr. Whether "friendly countries could not make reasonable decisions based upon a consistent French line" (because one would not exist under that set of conditions) or whether "friendly countries could not make reasonable decisions based upon an [in]consistent French line" (because that is what does exist) does not change the meaning of the response option nor does it change the cr.

[matt@atlaslsat]

Thanks for bringing my attention back to this question. I've changed my mind and no longer believe this is a typo. However, I do think the sentence structure is awkward.

This answer choice is saying that because there would not be a consistent French line, countries could not make reasonable decisions. That would support Lorraine's conclusion that such referenda would lead to a foreign-policy disaster.

I see it now. And I agree with LSAT All Star.

[LSAT All Star]

It was just a tricky way to test the logical fact that a double negative is just a positive.

[Colorado10]

I do not think this is a typo. No matter which way you read it, the meaning is the same as is the cr. Whether "friendly countries could not make reasonable decisions based upon a consistent French line" (because one would not exist under that set of conditions) or whether "friendly countries could not make reasonable decisions based upon an [in]consistent French line" (because that is what does exist) does not change the meaning of the response option nor does it change the cr.

LSAT All Star,

You claim that the meaning is the same whether it is "consistent French line" or "inconsistent French line." But I don't completely agree with that (yet).

If it says:

(C) Decision by referendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a consistent French line.

If countries could not make reasonable decisions even on a consistent French line, then the fact that decision by referendum would make the French line inconsistent ("the overall course of policy unpredictable") would not matter at all.

In other words, if you couldn't hit the ball when it was consistent, would you be more likely to hit the ball when it's inconsistent?

If it says:

(C) Decision by referendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a inconsistent French line.

I think it's pretty self-evident how the change produces a remarkably different meaning.
The "could" here changes to futuristic form. The sentence would be providing warning about the dire effect of the overall course of policy becoming "unpredictable." What's the bad consequence? Allies of France wouldn't be able to make reasonable decisions.

Thus, I believe the choice between "consistent" and "inconsistent" produces different meanings.

[niederbomb]

countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a consistent French line

France's allies could not make reasonable decisions because the French line is not consistent.

countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a inconsistent French line

Countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions because the French line is inconsistent.

I guess it does have the same meaning...Funny, I got this question right but only after I circled it and came back after the end of the section.

[LSAT All Star]

If countries could not make reasonable decisions even on a consistent French line, then the fact that decision by referendum would make the French line inconsistent ("the overall course of policy unpredictable") would not matter at all.

Whether you did it in your head or on paper as you wrote it, I think you changed the meaning of the sentence when you added the word "even."

[Colorado10]

OK I think I've hit a dead end where I can see only what I want to see . I'll return to this problem a few days from now, and re-read your post. thanks guys.