LR question: June 2007 sample Section II Question 4 Forum

[colstats]

Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value. But the Connorly Report is commissioned by Danto Foods, Ocksenfrey's largest corporate rival, and early drafts of the report are submitted for approval to Danto Foods' public relations department. Because of the obvious bias of this report, it is clear that Ocksenfrey's prepackaged meals really are nutritious.

The reasoning in the consumer's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

• A. treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report's claims are false

• B. draws a conclusion based solely on an unrepresentative sample of Ocksenfrey's products

• C. fails to take into account the possibility that Ocksenfrey has just as much motivation to create negative publicity for Danto as Danto has to create negative publicity for Ocksenfrey

• D. fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods' prepackaged meals are not more nutritious than Ocksenfrey's are

• E. presumes, without providing justification, that Danto Foods' public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto Foods' products

You can also see it here http://www.lsac.org/jd/LSAT/Prep/FreeSa ... tion2.html

I had a lot trouble doing this, I wrote down how I did it in the post below.

[PeanutsNJam]

I'm pretty sure it's A, but I'm bad at LR. I don't see your work?

[colstats]

Here's how I approached the question

Step 1: classify question type. There are 10 types of questions(?)
1. weaken/strengthen
2. flaw
3. requires assumption
4. argument against
5. logic parallels
6. resolves paradox
7. point at issue
8. must be/could be
9. properly inferred
10. conclusion is
The question is asking MOST VULNERABLE TO CRITICISM, so I think it is FLAW type.

Step 2: Upon on reading, I underline and circle words such as "but", "because",...

Step 3: Analysis of the choices!!

• A. treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report's claims are false

The question is asking for MOST VULNERABLE, I don't see how this is the most vulnerable. But, I won't cross it out just yet.

• B. draws a conclusion based solely on an unrepresentative sample of Ocksenfrey's products

How does saying it is "unrepresentative sample" make is most vulnerable. I don't even think it is a good bad choice. Is this suppose to be a trap answer? Also, I was taught when seeing words such as "solely", "ONLY", "MUST BE TRUE", it's usually a bad choice.

• C. fails to take into account the possibility that Ocksenfrey has just as much motivation to create negative publicity for Danto as Danto has to create negative publicity for Ocksenfrey

Is "create negative publicity" very vulnerable? I don't see anywhere in the passage talking about negative publicity, are we simply assuming that? Even if this is true, I don't see how this can make it vulnerable.

• D. fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods' prepackaged meals are not more nutritious than Ocksenfrey's are

I think when you "fail to provide evidence" it definitely makes the argument vulnerable, so, I picked this choice.

• E. presumes, without providing justification, that Danto Foods' public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto Foods' products

"Would not approve a draft of a report", the passage is talking about nutrition, so, I think the draft part is off topic.

[ccordero]

The answer is A.

The stimulus tries to make its conclusion on the basis that the competitor makes the report biased. Someone can correct me in saying this -- but this is an example of an ad hominem attack. Just because there is an apparent bias in the argument (due to the source, not due to a statistical bias), doesn't mean that the results are necessarily incorrect.

Since the stimulus's main conclusion is mainly supported by this, that's where it is is most open for criticism -- it just takes the apparent bias and claims that the report must be false just because of that.


To help illustrate, I'll use another example, lets say Company A and Company B are competing rivals and both produce some kind of soda drink. Company B unethically adds some addictive drug to their product. Company A discovers that B is doing this, and writes a report that gives evidence that Company B is adding this drug to the public. Company B claims that since Company A is their rival, there must be bias in the evidence, and therefore the report is false. This is not true. Get it?

[PeanutsNJam]

I'm not sure if A is the right one still, so I might be completely wrong...

But you seem to have done a good job eliminating B, C, and E. D is wrong because even if Danto Food's prepackaged meals are not more nutritious (i.e. Danto Foods' meals are as nutritious as Ocksenfrey's), it doesn't mean that Ocksenfrey's meals are NOT "devoid of nutritional value." Failing to provide evidence for something that is irrelevant does not weaken the argument.

A is the right answer because it's saying: "The author is assuming that evidence of bias is the same as evidence of Connorly Report lying."

I could be biased against mushrooms (I hate them), but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily lying when I say that some mushrooms are poisonous.

edit- derp got beaten to it

To be honest, for "most vulnerable", if you find an answer choice that definitely weakens the argument, pick it. I would have chosen A and moved on without looking at the rest of the choices to be honest.

[colstats]

To be honest, for "most vulnerable", if you find an answer choice that definitely weakens the argument, pick it. I would have chosen A and moved on without looking at the rest of the choices to be honest.

Really?

[mindarmed]

Please don't poast full questions to the boards.

A is easily the credited answer here, the conclusion dismisses the report because of apparent biases, answer A is the only one that attacks the conclusion.

[colstats]

The answer is A.

The stimulus tries to make its conclusion on the basis that the competitor makes the report biased. Someone can correct me in saying this -- but this is an example of an ad hominem attack. Just because there is an apparent bias in the argument (due to the source, not due to a statistical bias), doesn't mean that the results are necessarily incorrect.

Since the stimulus's main conclusion is mainly supported by this, that's where it is is most open for criticism -- it just takes the apparent bias and claims that the report must be false just because of that.


To help illustrate, I'll use another example, lets say Company A and Company B are competing rivals and both produce some kind of soda drink. Company B unethically adds some addictive drug to their product. Company A discovers that B is doing this, and writes a report that gives evidence that Company B is adding this drug to the public. Company B claims that since Company A is their rival, there must be bias in the evidence, and therefore the report is false. This is not true. Get it?

I like your example a lot. What is a stimulus? Consumer, the argument, Obama's package?

• A. treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report's claims are false

For choice A, What does "treats evidence that there is..." mean? Treats what evidence? that there is an apparent bias? There are TWO "evidence that" in this sentence, which makes this a nasty read. Can't LSAC use another word or sentence structure???

[Chardee_MacDennis]

The answer is A.

The stimulus tries to make its conclusion on the basis that the competitor makes the report biased. Someone can correct me in saying this -- but this is an example of an ad hominem attack. Just because there is an apparent bias in the argument (due to the source, not due to a statistical bias), doesn't mean that the results are necessarily incorrect.

Since the stimulus's main conclusion is mainly supported by this, that's where it is is most open for criticism -- it just takes the apparent bias and claims that the report must be false just because of that.


To help illustrate, I'll use another example, lets say Company A and Company B are competing rivals and both produce some kind of soda drink. Company B unethically adds some addictive drug to their product. Company A discovers that B is doing this, and writes a report that gives evidence that Company B is adding this drug to the public. Company B claims that since Company A is their rival, there must be bias in the evidence, and therefore the report is false. This is not true. Get it?

I like your example a lot. What is a stimulus? Consumer, the argument, Obama's package?

• A. treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report's claims are false

For choice A, What does "treats evidence that there is..." mean? Treats what evidence? that there is an apparent bias? There are TWO "evidence that" in this sentence, which makes this a nasty read. Can't LSAC use another word or sentence structure???

The evidence is that the report is commissioned by the company’s rival, which, in the author’s view, makes the report biased. Thus, according to the author, the claim that the packaged product is not nutritious is false due to this bias. It’s more of a “defeats the evidence of a claim to prove that claim is true” flaw than anything else.

Here's how I approached the question

Step 1: classify question type. There are 10 types of questions(?)
1. weaken/strengthen
2. flaw
3. requires assumption
4. argument against
5. logic parallels
6. resolves paradox
7. point at issue
8. must be/could be
9. properly inferred
10. conclusion is
The question is asking MOST VULNERABLE TO CRITICISM, so I think it is FLAW type.

Step 2: Upon on reading, I underline and circle words such as "but", "because",...

Step 3: Analysis of the choices!!

• A. treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report's claims are false

The question is asking for MOST VULNERABLE, I don't see how this is the most vulnerable. But, I won't cross it out just yet.

• B. draws a conclusion based solely on an unrepresentative sample of Ocksenfrey's products

How does saying it is "unrepresentative sample" make is most vulnerable. I don't even think it is a good bad choice. Is this suppose to be a trap answer? Also, I was taught when seeing words such as "solely", "ONLY", "MUST BE TRUE", it's usually a bad choice.

• C. fails to take into account the possibility that Ocksenfrey has just as much motivation to create negative publicity for Danto as Danto has to create negative publicity for Ocksenfrey

Is "create negative publicity" very vulnerable? I don't see anywhere in the passage talking about negative publicity, are we simply assuming that? Even if this is true, I don't see how this can make it vulnerable.

• D. fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods' prepackaged meals are not more nutritious than Ocksenfrey's are

I think when you "fail to provide evidence" it definitely makes the argument vulnerable, so, I picked this choice.

• E. presumes, without providing justification, that Danto Foods' public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto Foods' products

"Would not approve a draft of a report", the passage is talking about nutrition, so, I think the draft part is off topic.

D is incorrect because you don't necessarily care about this, and even if it were true, the conclusion is that the report is biased, so the claim in the report is false, not that one company's foods are more nutritious than the other. This goes outside the scope of the stimulus.

[PeanutsNJam]

To be honest, for "most vulnerable", if you find an answer choice that definitely weakens the argument, pick it. I would have chosen A and moved on without looking at the rest of the choices to be honest.

Really?

You're never going to be hit with two answer choices that both weaken the argument, but one weakens it more. That's just asking for lawsuits.

[colstats]

The evidence is that the report is commissioned by the company’s rival, which, in the author’s view, makes the report biased. Thus, according to the author, the claim that the packaged product is not nutritious is false due to this bias. It’s more of a “defeats the evidence of a claim to prove that claim is true” flaw than anything else.

D is incorrect because you don't necessarily care about this, and even if it were true, the conclusion is that the report is biased, so the claim in the report is false, not that one company's foods are more nutritious than the other. This goes outside the scope of the stimulus.

Thanks for your response, but why is choice A so right compared to the others. Which ones would you say is a trap answer, and a good wrong answer? What is each choice trying to get at? To me, some are just WAY OFF, such as C.


Could you comment on the way I analyzed on EACH choice? Also, is my general approach good?

[colstats]

You're never going to be hit with two answer choices that both weaken the argument, but one weakens it more. That's just asking for lawsuits.

I agree. But when I said really, I meant for this statement,

I would have chosen A and moved on without looking at the rest of the choices to be honest.

I am a noob, but is it a good practice to skip choices you haven't read? Suppose you misread, when you get to choice E, you see the better answer, you realize you've misread.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

The evidence is that the report is commissioned by the company’s rival, which, in the author’s view, makes the report biased. Thus, according to the author, the claim that the packaged product is not nutritious is false due to this bias. It’s more of a “defeats the evidence of a claim to prove that claim is true” flaw than anything else.


D is incorrect because you don't necessarily care about this, and even if it were true, the conclusion is that the report is biased, so the claim in the report is false, not that one company's foods are more nutritious than the other. This goes outside the scope of the stimulus.

Thanks for your respose, but I don't get it, why is choice A so right compared to the others. What would you say is the trap answer, versus a very good bad answer? What is each choice trying to get at? To me, some are just WAY OFF.

Could you comment on the way I analysis on EACH of the choices? Also, is my general approach good?

It seems like the flaw in your approach is that you fail to properly identify the premise(s) and conclusion of the argument. In this instance, the commentator makes a very specific conclusion: the report is biased, so the claim that the company's products are devoid of nutritional value is false. The flaw is that he's treating the fact that a certain piece of evidence for a claim could be/is flawed, therefore the claim itself is false. Maybe the report is biased, but that fact doesn't rule out the validity of the claim. You need an answer choice that addresses that.


A) Cash money. The evidence is flawed, so the claim (foods are devoid of nutrtional value) is false.
B) The stimulus doesn't mention other products, just a very specific type of product to which the report refers. Sampling isn't an issue here.
C) Maybe they do, but how does this address our conclusion? (Hint: it doesn't.)
D) Again, we're talking about a report that makes a claim about a specific product, the refutation of the evidence (the report), and how the claim is therefore false. Who cares about the competitor's products?
E) The report is about Ocksenfrey's foods, not Danto's.

Also, don't post the full text of the actual question.

[PeanutsNJam]

I think it's ok to post the full text since the practice test is open source. Regarding your "why is A the right one", two reasons:

- It fits. It answers the question; no more, no less. It's not wrong.
- There's something wrong with all the other answer choices.

You will see some wayyy more wishy-washy questions than this on the LSAT. Usually, in the earlier questions (before 15), "not wrong" is sufficient to warrant a correct answer. After #13-17, it gets really sketchy, and you have to start picking the "best" ones (get into scope shifts, etc.).

[colstats]

@PeanutsNJam: What do you mean by "It fits. It answers the question" ? That does not help me or anyone understand.
@Chardee_MacDennis: thanks for your explanation.

So, here is how I see it. There's the passage, the question, and the choices. Three things.

1. The passage: a claim and an opposition.
The claim: "prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value" by Connorly Report.
Opposition: Connorly Report is biased because it's commissioned by Danto Food, so, this is the rebuttal. It concludes "prepackaged meals really are nutritious.

2. The question: it's asking for the biggest loophole (aka most vulnerable IMO).

3. The choices: I kind of see what others are explaining, but not really.

To pin it down:
I understand the passage and question, I have a lot trouble picking vs eliminating the choices.

[colstats]

Also, don't post the full text of the actual question.

Please show me how I can post half of the question and still ask the question. I'd be glad to do it.

[mindarmed]

Also, don't post the full text of the actual question.

Please show me how I can post half of the question and still ask the question. I'd be glad to do it.

Just post the PT #, Section # and Question #, with a description of your uncertainty.

[PeanutsNJam]

@PeanutsNJam: What do you mean by "It fits. It answers the question" ? That does not help me or anyone understand.
@Chardee_MacDennis: thanks for your explanation.

So, here is how I see it. There's the passage, the question, and the choices. Three things.

1. The passage: a claim and an opposition.
The claim: "prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value" by Connorly Report.
Opposition: Connorly Report is biased because it's commissioned by Danto Food, so, this is the rebuttal. It concludes "prepackaged meals really are nutritious.

2. The question: it's asking for the biggest loophole (aka most vulnerable IMO).

3. The choices: I kind of see what others are explaining, but not really.

To pin it down:
I understand the passage and question, I have a lot trouble picking vs eliminating the choices.

Dude, you have 4 different people explaining to you in [correct] different ways why answer choice A "fits" and "answers the question."

If anything, A is right because all the other 4 are clearly wrong. B C and E are no-brainer wrong ones. I'll quote myself to explain why D is wrong:

"D is wrong because even if Danto Food's prepackaged meals are not more nutritious (i.e. Danto Foods' meals are as nutritious as Ocksenfrey's), it doesn't mean that Ocksenfrey's meals are NOT "devoid of nutritional value." Failing to provide evidence for something that is irrelevant does not weaken the argument."

[Chardee_MacDennis]

@PeanutsNJam: What do you mean by "It fits. It answers the question" ? That does not help me or anyone understand.
@Chardee_MacDennis: thanks for your explanation.

So, here is how I see it. There's the passage, the question, and the choices. Three things.

1. The passage: a claim and an opposition.
The claim: "prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value" by Connorly Report.
Opposition: Connorly Report is biased because it's commissioned by Danto Food, so, this is the rebuttal. It concludes "prepackaged meals really are nutritious.

2. The question: it's asking for the biggest loophole (aka most vulnerable IMO).

3. The choices: I kind of see what others are explaining, but not really.

To pin it down:
I understand the passage and question, I have a lot trouble picking vs eliminating the choices.

Re: #3--Not sure what else to tell you, then. This is actually a pretty easy question, and seeing distinctions within answer choices is the essence of the LSAT.