Preptest 39 Section 4 #19 Necessary Assumption Forum

[sdwarrior403]

I have read a lot of explanations for this question, but I have problems for the dismissal of answer choice A.

The conclusion is that everyone should have a will that states how one wants their estate distributed.

I say that the conclusion is that everyone due to the sentence saying "one ought to..." To me, this translates to anyone, or the equivalent, everyone.

The reasons for the conclusion is that in the absence of a will, relatives one has never met has a greater legal right to your stuff than your close friends do.

For me, I cannot understand how someone can disregard answer choice A by saying that if you negate it, it would not touch the argument, that the argument is left unaffected.

"Someone wants their estate to go to someone they never met."

To me, that would touch the argument. We have a conclusion concerning everyone. And this directly undermines that conclusion.

I would like help on this.

[CyanIdes Of March]

The conclusion is "One ought to have a will stating how one wishes one's estate to be distributed". If we negate answer choice A as "Someone out there is ok with their estate going to people they've never met", we still haven't proven the conclusion false. Someone out there could be ok with the estate going to someone they've never met and the suggestion that they have a will written up (perhaps to reflect that) could still hold, even if it seems redundant. The point is, this fact doesn't have to be absolutely true for the conclusion to remain viable.

D, on the other hand, does that. If you negate D: "People are generally indifferent about how their estate is distributed" then the conclusion no longer makes sense because it doesn't matter if someone has a will designating who gets what if most people don't care in the first place.

HTH

EDIT: I'm not convinced "One ought to" translates to "Everyone should". I think it better translates to "Generally, a person should".

Also, this link may help explain the question better than I did.

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q19 ... 0244f4076d

[sdwarrior403]

I would like to know how that statement does not imply everyone?

I know that this seems to be the key to understanding the dismissal of answer choice A.

If I said that one can become a better student, doesnt that mean anyone?

Where is this one = generally stuff coming from?

[BlaqBella]

Answer choice A is more befitting for a sufficient assumption question. The correct answers to necessary assumption questions are often not as extreme.

[RCinDNA]

"One" usually refers to a single person or entity in a group.

"One ought to" in my opinion, to me, is more like saying "One/You should". It doesn't necessarily imply "Everyone should" - it moreso implies a recommendation for individuals. If they said "All people ought to have wills", then that would be like saying "Everyone should."

I haven't seen anything in LSAT prep that gives a better explanation, so I'm going off of the general usage in the English language, though.

[sdwarrior403]

"One" usually refers to a single person or entity in a group.

"One ought to" in my opinion, to me, is more like saying "One/You should". It doesn't necessarily imply "Everyone should" - it moreso implies a recommendation for individuals. If they said "All people ought to have wills", then that would be like saying "Everyone should."

I haven't seen anything in LSAT prep that gives a better explanation, so I'm going off of the general usage in the English language, though.

To me, I don't understand how one does not mean anyone. Of course the "one" means you, but it also means to any other person. This means everyone.

[RCinDNA]

"One" usually refers to a single person or entity in a group.

"One ought to" in my opinion, to me, is more like saying "One/You should". It doesn't necessarily imply "Everyone should" - it moreso implies a recommendation for individuals. If they said "All people ought to have wills", then that would be like saying "Everyone should."

I haven't seen anything in LSAT prep that gives a better explanation, so I'm going off of the general usage in the English language, though.

To me, I don't understand how one does not mean anyone. Of course the "one" means you, but it also means to any other person. This means everyone.

Well, not quite. I think you are taking an extra step to imply everyone. Technically, "one" is specifically referring to "one person". That is why generally "one" is used in situations wherein prescriptive advice is offered to one person that other people ought to follow, while "everyone", "all" or even "one and all" is used when referring to a broader group.

I'm reminded of the Logic Bibles' explanation of Some->Most->All. The way I see it, "One" means "Some (as in at least 1 or possibly more than 1)", whereas you are suggesting that because more than one could be implied but no entity is singled out it automatically means "All".

This is why I think it is easier to just use "You" in this case, because I think the highfalutin language was part of the trick.

ETA: Tried to find a good article that might be helpful to you. This one, at least, lays out why it is safer to use "you" instead of "one": http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/on ... s-you.aspx. Generally speaking, though, what everyone agrees with is that "One" is actually singular in the usage we are describing, not plural.