Extremely important LR question [FREE PRESENT INSIDE :D] Forum

[sighsigh]

Your present is a chocolate chip. There it is! => .

However, it is being kept inside a locked steel strongbox until I am satisfied with a good answer => [.]

__________________________________________________________

Take a look at PT#35, S#1, Q#15.

The survey is biased and unrepresentative
---
Therefore, there is reason to be skeptical of the conclusion drawn in the survey.

(D) clearly strengthens the argument by linking the premise and conclusion.
But (A), (B) and (C) only strengthen the conclusion. They completely ignore the premise.

So, based on what I've seen here, it seems that the LSAT considers an answer choice which
strengthens/justifies only the conclusion and not the argument as correct in a strengthen question, yes?

EDIT: Make some changes to the title to attract more visitors.

[sighsigh]

No responses? I thought you guys would have lots to say about this.

[BlaqBella]

A, B and C actually strengthens the argument core (the premises (biased + self-selecting) that supports the conclusion (there is reason to be skeptical of magazines conclusion). Remember, that for weaken/strengthen question outside information can be used. Given that this is a strengthen question, you can view the answer choices as additional premises to help support the conclusion or eliminate alternative causes that may challenge our premises (and thus, our conclusion):

A - Strengthens by calling into question magazines creds

B - This helps the argument by presenting the possibility of this magazine survey being part of the "most" that eventually are disproved

C - Evidence that other surveys conflict with what this survey concludes

View strengthen questions as addition props to help support our conclusion and/or the premise that is already provided.

[sighsigh]

I view (A), (B) and (C) as additional premises that strengthen the conclusion independently of the premise already stated in the stimulus. They do not make use of the premise already stated in the stimulus to strengthen the conclusion, the way (D) does.

Do you agree with me that there is a difference between the way (D) strengthens and the way (A), (B), and (C) strengthen?

[BlaqBella]

I do not. All are equally the same in that they provide additional premises to help support the argument. All are premises and all help strengthen the argument core (premise to conclusion).

So, based on what I've seen here, it seems that the LSAT considers an answer choice which
strengthens/justifies only the conclusion and not the argument as correct in a strengthen question, yes?

No. There can be no conclusion without a premise(s). To strengthen a conclusion you strengthen/justify the premise(s) that leads us to the conclusion.

Same with weaken questions. Correct answer choices to weaken/strengthen question will not only deal with one side of the argument. It either fills (strengthen) or disconnect (weaken) the gap between premise and conclusion and there will always be a gap between premise and conclusion for these type of questions.

[sighsigh]

Interesting. But in my eyes there is a distinct difference. I may be off-base though. Please, someone else weigh in. In the meantime, let me give one more example. Take this argument:

This person is a man.
---
Therefore, this person is unmarried.

Answer choice #1: All men are unmarried.

Answer choice #2: All persons are single.

Both answer choice #1 and #2 clearly justify the conclusion. However, #1 does it by showing that the person is unmarried BECAUSE he is a man. #2 shows the person is unmarried (if he is single, you can infer he is unmarried), and does it while completely ignoring the fact that he is a man.

To me, #1 and #2 justify in different ways. #1 justifies the argument, but #2 just justifies the conclusion.

[boblawlob]

Premise:
- Magazine concludes Americans care more about money than politics.
- Survey question is biased
- Surveyed are a self-selecting sample.

Conclusion:
-Be Skeptical of magazine's conclusion that Americans care more about money than politics.

A. Attacks magazine's conclusion by bringing up possibility that its conclusion is wrong...therefore strengthen's main conclusion...eliminate
B. Same as above
C. Same as above
D. Connects all the premises together and boosts main conclusion...eliminate
E. What does this say about the magazine's conclusion? Is it right or wrong? What does social issues have to do with this? Can we determine what direction to lean towards in regards to "Do Americans care more about money or politics?"...We don't know...this is answer

You're forgetting that the main conclusion is about the magazine's conclusion. So by strengthening the main conclusion you have to weaken the magazine's conclusion.


Edit: To strengthen the conclusion IS to strengthen the argument. To strengthen an argument does not mean it is necessary to directly link premise to conclusion.

Take your above example. I could say "This person does not have a ring where a wedding ring should be" and that would strengthen the conclusion of "This person is unmarried." It doesn't need to strengthen 100%...just 1% is enough.

[03152016]

.