A question asks you to analyze the argument structure... Forum

[lsat_hopeful]

of a discussion between two speakers (X and Y). More specifically, it asks you to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument.

If Speaker X's argument precedes Speaker Y's argument, and you are specifically asked to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument, what would you do? (as in, would you read both speakers' arguments (if yes, for what reason?) or would you only read Speaker X's argument since that is the one you are being asked about directly).

Thanks.

And for context, the question I'm currently working on is from PT16, LR2, Q19.

[Wrong Marx]

of a discussion between two speakers (X and Y). More specifically, it asks you to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument.

If Speaker X's argument precedes Speaker Y's argument, and you are specifically asked to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument, what would you do? (as in, would you read both speakers' arguments (if yes, for what reason?) or would you only read Speaker X's argument since that is the one you are being asked about directly).

Thanks.

And for context, the question I'm currently working on is from PT16, LR2, Q19.

It depends....

If I were drilling by type, and PT16, LR1, Q18 were to come up, then I would only read Ping's argument. However, if you look at the actual section, the question that precedes this one (Q17, ldo) asks about the relationship between the arguments made by the two different speakers, so by the time I got to Q18, I would have already read both of the arguments, and I most likely would not have to reread it. If I did need to reread something, then I would only reread the relevant speaker's argument.

However, PT16, LR2, Q19 (the one you actually are asking about) doesn't have the same issue; it is the first question in the series of two questions related to the same stimulus, and it happens to ask about the first speaker's argument. SO, I would just read the first speaker's argument. Then, when I got to Q20, I would read the second speaker's argument.

As a general rule, if the question asks something about the first speaker's argument, then I only read the argument of the first speaker. If, however, it asks about the second (or third) speaker, then I read everything up to and including the portion of the dialog that is asked about.

[lsat_hopeful]

However, PT16, LR2, Q19 (the one you actually are asking about) doesn't have the same issue; it is the first question in the series of two questions related to the same stimulus, and it happens to ask about the first speaker's argument. SO, I would just read the first speaker's argument. Then, when I got to Q20, I would read the second speaker's argument.

I didn't realize it was part of a two part question - it was interesting to me that it would only ask about one speaker when the stimulus included two, but that makes a lot more sense!

As a general rule, if the question asks something about the first speaker's argument, then I only read the argument of the first speaker. If, however, it asks about the second (or third) speaker, then I read everything up to and including the portion of the dialog that is asked about.

That's fair, and I think I'd do the same. Thanks for your input.

[bp shinners]

of a discussion between two speakers (X and Y). More specifically, it asks you to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument.

If Speaker X's argument precedes Speaker Y's argument, and you are specifically asked to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument, what would you do? (as in, would you read both speakers' arguments (if yes, for what reason?) or would you only read Speaker X's argument since that is the one you are being asked about directly).

Thanks.

And for context, the question I'm currently working on is from PT16, LR2, Q19.

If it asks for the MP of speaker 2, I'm reading both. Why? Because I'm expecting that main point to be something like, "You're wrong." If I don't know what speaker 1 said, then I don't know what it means for him to be wrong.

[lsat_hopeful]

of a discussion between two speakers (X and Y). More specifically, it asks you to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument.

If Speaker X's argument precedes Speaker Y's argument, and you are specifically asked to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument, what would you do? (as in, would you read both speakers' arguments (if yes, for what reason?) or would you only read Speaker X's argument since that is the one you are being asked about directly).

Thanks.

And for context, the question I'm currently working on is from PT16, LR2, Q19.

If it asks for the MP of speaker 2, I'm reading both. Why? Because I'm expecting that main point to be something like, "You're wrong." If I don't know what speaker 1 said, then I don't know what it means for him to be wrong.

I would have done the same if it was asking about Speaker 2's argument. In this situation, however, it was only asking for the MP of Speaker 1. I found it odd that Speaker 2's argument thus seemed irrelevant and superfluous (it didn't seem necessary to read it in order to understand Speaker 1's argument or in order to be able to answer the question correctly), but Wrong Marx mentioned that the specific question I was referring to was originally the first question in the series of two questions. I think the second question was the one that mentioned/referred to the second speaker's argument.

[bp shinners]

of a discussion between two speakers (X and Y). More specifically, it asks you to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument.

If Speaker X's argument precedes Speaker Y's argument, and you are specifically asked to identify the main conclusion of Speaker X's argument, what would you do? (as in, would you read both speakers' arguments (if yes, for what reason?) or would you only read Speaker X's argument since that is the one you are being asked about directly).

Thanks.

And for context, the question I'm currently working on is from PT16, LR2, Q19.

If it asks for the MP of speaker 2, I'm reading both. Why? Because I'm expecting that main point to be something like, "You're wrong." If I don't know what speaker 1 said, then I don't know what it means for him to be wrong.

I would have done the same if it was asking about Speaker 2's argument. In this situation, however, it was only asking for the MP of Speaker 1. I found it odd that Speaker 2's argument thus seemed irrelevant and superfluous (it didn't seem necessary to read it in order to understand Speaker 1's argument or in order to be able to answer the question correctly), but Wrong Marx mentioned that the specific question I was referring to was originally the first question in the series of two questions. I think the second question was the one that mentioned/referred to the second speaker's argument.

Ah, gotcha. However, I can think of at least 1 question where the second speaker was completely irrelevant. It does happen.