PT57 LR2 #23 - Mitters/Brushes Forum

[SaintsTheMetal]

This is the first time in the hundreds of LSAT questions that I've seen that the answer to a "most strongly supported" question is something that could easily NOT be true.

Normally when I read an answer choice like C, I can immediately throw it out because of the case outlined here by BK187 (as turned up by a google search on this retarded ass question:)
"The answer is C. The stimulus says that mitters, which brushless car washes use, are easier on most cars' finishes than brushes are. This does not support the statement that it usually does not produce scratches on older cars (which are more scratch resistant than newer cars). If brushes scratched 95% of old cars and mitters scratched 90% of old cars, mitters are still easier on a car's finish, but still usually produce scratches. i.e. A machete is "easier" on a car's finish than a 50 caliber machine gun, but a machete is still gonna scratch a car the majority of the time."

So with C, the LSAT makes the jump from scratches LESS to USUALLY DO NOT scratch.

Personally, I chose answer choice A, which I originally crossed out as well. But, I found the logical jump in A less drastic than the logical jump in C.. The jump in A is that in the past car washes were more damaging, so there were more damaged cars. It makes the assumption that the switch to clearcoats does not out-weigh the switch to mitters from brushes.

Honestly, I don't need help understanding the LSAT's answer, because it's clear that is NOT a solid logical explanation other than all the other ACs are more wrong.

I think on 99.99% of questions up until this point, an AC of that quality could be thrown out and to look for a better one. I guess my worry about this is... Should I adjust my LR strategy on this type of question because of this ONE problem? I'm working up to PT65 for the June LSAT.. can anyone tell me if there have been any other LR questions this asinine since PT57?

[suspicious android]

This question is fine, you're getting a little carried away here. You do need to understand why C is right, because the LSAT occasionally asks you to make commonsense assumptions like this.

If mitters scratched older vehicles, they would scratch the newer, more delicate, clear-coat ones too, so car washes would scratch most vehicles, and that would just be crazy. This question implicitly asks you, "Do you think car washes visibly scratch most vehicles that get washed there?" If your answer is no, you pick C. There's this idea that you should go into the LSAT with a blank slate, pretending naivete of any outside knowledge of the world, but that's silly. And I think the LSAT writers like to put in a question now and again to punish that kind of robotic insistence on perfect validity.

Also, this question is a good counter-example to the often repeated idea that newer LR are more "clean" or straightforward. I'm sure if this were a question from 1994, people would dismiss it as being too old, back when (they think) the LSAT questions were sloppier.

[VasaVasori]

.

[TERS]

If we are to assume, before reading the question, that usually a car is not scratched by a car wash, then we don't even need to read the stimulus. I find that bizarre...

[VasaVasori]

.

[TERS]

If you also assume that older cars are no more likely to be scratched than newer cars, true.

Nope, don't even need that.

[VasaVasori]

.

[SaintsTheMetal]

If mitters scratched older vehicles, they would scratch the newer, more delicate, clear-coat ones too, so car washes would scratch most vehicles, and that would just be crazy. This question implicitly asks you, "Do you think car washes visibly scratch most vehicles that get washed there?" If your answer is no, you pick C. There's this idea that you should go into the LSAT with a blank slate, pretending naivete of any outside knowledge of the world, but that's silly. And I think the LSAT writers like to put in a question now and again to punish that kind of robotic insistence on perfect validity.

I think this is a VERY big jump to make. I would never use an automatic car wash, much less a BRUSH car wash on my own car, because yes they DO leave visible scratches. It's like a freakin wire brush. So I would never say that a car wash "usually" does not scratch a car. Even if you're talking about the newest 'touchless' car wash (a lot better than mitters,) they still leave all kinds of microscratches and dull your paint thus being visible.

BUT I think the LSAT has trained us to NOT bring in outside knowledge.. so being required to have some pre-conceived notion of car washes not scratching your car seems contradictory to the other hundreds of LSAT questions I've otherwise done..

Do you know of any other LR question PT58-65 that really demands non-LSAT assumptions? Because this is the first one I encountered from over 40 LR sections now

edit to respond to last post: "usually a car is not scratched by a car wash" - I think getting to your first premise is a much larger jump from the passage than anything else..

The ONLY thing the stimulus states is, "Mitters are easier on most car's finishes than brushes are." If you hop over to any car enthusiast forum, they would probably agree with this statement. But they would also say they would never use either kind of car wash, because ALL automated car washes scratch the shit out of your paint

[VasaVasori]

.

[twenty]

I don't like this question either -- but here's the thing, all the other answers are far, far worse. I wouldn't worry about this one too much. Kick out the obviously wrong answers, you'll probably be left with C anddd... maybe A.

[SaintsTheMetal]

Keep in mind here that your intention, if you want to do well on the LSAT, needs to be to understand why this is right as opposed to showing why it's wrong. So I'd pursue that line of thought. I used to do this same thing, but eventually I realized that it's just unproductive: you need to be figuring out why the correct answer is correct, not trying to show how it's wrong.

You can find Manhattan LSAT prep's explanation here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q23 ... 31b0ff80d3

In terms of your question, I do remember that there was a question where you had to assume that ~good=bad. In any case, C is undeniably the best answer choice; all the rest have no support whatsoever in the passage.

you are right.. i did get a little carried away arguing against the LSAT.. and that website is always the first place I look but did not find it helpful for this question..

What I would be more concerned with is if just because of this ONE question you alter your LR strategy which could then have a negative effect on test day. I think this question is very contradictory to the majority of LSAT questions. I know for a fact I have been able to easily eliminate ACs in the past that equate 'less than' to 'none,' and easily get that question correct.

I think that I may keep my eyes open for another example of question like this, but I do not think one highly controversial question warrants the potential implications this could make to other questions.

[Taus11]

Make sure to keep in mind the distinction between must be true and most strongly supported when you are working with inference questions. For supported questions, I have encountered many problems where it's not even necessarily true, but nevertheless receives the most support out of the available options. This question was straightforward - (C) receives the strongest support from the text, although it doesn't have to be true, we have no support (or close to none) for other ones. I think you are over-thinking this problem a little bit.

[03152016]

.

[SaintsTheMetal]

But they would also say they would never use either kind of car wash, because ALL automated car washes scratch the shit out of your paint

Kind of like this? http://youtu.be/pJ1BnS68YzE

made me lol hard

[bp shinners]

In terms of your question, I do remember that there was a question where you had to assume that ~good=bad. In any case, C is undeniably the best answer choice; all the rest have no support whatsoever in the passage.

Do you remember the question? I don't believe the LSAT has ever asked you to equivocate between those two terms. It might have treated 'bad' as being 'not good', but that's different between equivocating and saying that ~good=bad. To put it differently, in every LSAT question I've ever seen, they don't say something is ~good and then ask you to make the jump to bad; however, it will treat bad as fulfilling the sufficient condition of ~good, because while not meaning the same thing, bad includes the idea of not being good (i.e. not everything that's not good is bad, but everything that's bad is not good). A slight difference, but an important one for some of those high end questions.

As far as assumptions the LSAT wants/allows you to make, most of them are what I'd characterize as 'definitional' - the 'assumption' is pretty intrinsically tied into how most people define the word. So for instance, if they're talking about a democracy, then voting is good. If they're talking about pollution, it can make you sick/give you cancer. If we're talking about a for-profit business, the business is interested in making money.

Here, a car wash is treated as being a place you take your car to make it look good/clean; people wouldn't do that if there were visible scratches all over their cars after the left.

All that being said, I'm with you on not liking this question. C's obviously the right answer, but this is about as far as I'd be willing to stretch for a correct answer on a Soft Must Be True question - and even then, I would probably have axed this question if I was writing the test. Don't readjust your strategy because of this one; I personally think it's an outlier.

[appind]

In terms of your question, I do remember that there was a question where you had to assume that ~good=bad. In any case, C is undeniably the best answer choice; all the rest have no support whatsoever in the passage.

Do you remember the question? I don't believe the LSAT has ever asked you to equivocate between those two terms. It might have treated 'bad' as being 'not good', but that's different between equivocating and saying that ~good=bad. To put it differently, in every LSAT question I've ever seen, they don't say something is ~good and then ask you to make the jump to bad; however, it will treat bad as fulfilling the sufficient condition of ~good, because while not meaning the same thing, bad includes the idea of not being good (i.e. not everything that's not good is bad, but everything that's bad is not good). A slight difference, but an important one for some of those high end questions.

As far as assumptions the LSAT wants/allows you to make, most of them are what I'd characterize as 'definitional' - the 'assumption' is pretty intrinsically tied into how most people define the word. So for instance, if they're talking about a democracy, then voting is good. If they're talking about pollution, it can make you sick/give you cancer. If we're talking about a for-profit business, the business is interested in making money.

Here, a car wash is treated as being a place you take your car to make it look good/clean; people wouldn't do that if there were visible scratches all over their cars after the left.

All that being said, I'm with you on not liking this question. C's obviously the right answer, but this is about as far as I'd be willing to stretch for a correct answer on a Soft Must Be True question - and even then, I would probably have axed this question if I was writing the test. Don't readjust your strategy because of this one; I personally think it's an outlier.

hopefully this question is an outlier for MSS type. can't understand why lsac writers let this question pass.