PT71 LR2 q21 bad question? Forum

[jmjm]

Isn't this a bad question?
"Closely not perfectly" signifies that the chemical reproduction of scents doesn't match the actual scents fully. So it exposes a clear weakness in the conducted study and therefore the results deduced on its basis. Here is the way I saw this question. An analogous argument could be,
Study S uses M for evaluating a group X.
N reproduces M.
Study S based on M shows that a group X performed worse than the control group in doing task T.
Therefore, group X is bad at T.

If N does not fully reproduce M, which is critical in affecting the results of S, then it shows a flaw in the study. This weakens the study S and its results that were based on M. Any answer choice hinting at N not fully reproducing M will weaken the argument. This seems to be exactly what the answer choice A does in the question and so it seems to weaken the argument.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

I can see why you would be tempted to think that (A) weakened here, but there are a few critical things to contend with:

1) the real import of the "closely but not perfectly reproduced" the scents is that the chemicals were pretty darn close to the real deal. A solid weakener would be 'the chemicals only vaguely resembled the real scents' or 'the chemicals were a terrible fascimile of the real scents', and (A) effectively dismisses that potential objection.

2) the scents don't need to be 100% perfectly exactly like the real scents in order to give us valid information - they just need to be worthwhile approximations. Where the line is, exactly, may be a bit of a judgment call, but it's safe to say that 'closely but not perfectly' is well over it.

3) even if they aren't absolutely perfect, the control group is still knocking it out of the park compared to the sulfur group - why is that? If we didn't have a control group, and were just analyzing a single group, then any imperfect in the scents could potentially be the cause for poor performance. But we have a control group smelling the same 99.9% similar scents, and identifying them loads better. This slight imperfection in the scents doesn't explain the difference we see between the performance of the two groups.

And that's the main issue here. We have a classic argument of:

• PREMISE: Phenomenon (one group outperforms another on smell test)
  CONCLUSION: Explanation for phenomenon (it's because sulfur exposure)

All four of the valid weakeners give us an alternate explanation for the phenomenon - i.e., another reason to explain why the factory workers did worse in comparison to the non-factory workers. (A) brings up a teeny imperfection in the chemicals, but doesn't do anything to explain the difference in the two groups performances. And that difference in performance is *really* what the stimulus is all about.

Does that help?

[Jeffort]

To supplement what Christine said, here is an explanation I posted last week about the same question regarding (A). It is not flawed. Instead of weakening, it actually strengthens the argument.

I am given to understand we can talk about specific questions now... If this is not the case, please don't ban me. Deleting the thread and PMing me would be preferable.

So, I am having trouble understanding why (A) is the correct answer for this one and not (D).

(A) does weaken the argument, at least to some extent, because if the scents reproduced are "close, but not perfect," the results of the study might be skewed by people who couldn't identify the scent because it wasn't close enough to the real thing.

(D), on the other hand, seems like irrelevant information. We already know sulfur gas fumes damage smell; why do other gas fumes matter?

Thanks!

The way (A) is phrased is a little tricky since by specifying 'not perfectly', it gets you to immediately think about that being problematic and perhaps pointing out a weakness in the way the study was conducted. If you focus only on that part it appears to weaken. However, that is not all the AC says. It also tells you that the chemicals used DO 'closely' reproduce the corresponding scents. This actually strengthens the argument! Even though the chemicals don't perfectly reproduce the scents, they are close to perfect rather than having scents that are significantly different from the corresponding natural scents. If the chemical scents were significantly different from the natural corresponding scents, then that would seriously weaken the argument by giving you an alternative reason for why people didn't correctly identify the scents. Ever smelled a peach scented candle while out shopping somewhere? Did it smell really similar to an actual peach or were you disappointed? (A) rules out that alternative cause (the chemicals smelled a lot different than what they were supposed to smell like) as a reason for the low rate of correct identification, therefore strengthening the argument. Although I really like how chemically scented watermelon candles smell (they are awesome! only second to cinnamon!), they smell nothing like a real watermelon. Same thing with coconut and a bunch of other artificial chemical scents. Blindfolded, I would have trouble guessing the real item they are supposed to smell like except for cinnamon.

(D) weakens the argument by pointing out an alternative cause for why the factory workers recognition of the scents was horrible that is different from sulfur fumes having damaged their senses of smell. The other noxious fumes (other than from sulfur) mentioned could be something that damaged the workers sense of smell rather than sulfur fumes being the culprit. Maybe the factories also emit lots of chlorine or ammonia fumes or whatever other noxious fumes you can think of, and those fumes could be ones that damaged the workers sense of smell instead of the sulfur fumes.

[jmjm]

I can see why you would be tempted to think that (A) weakened here, but there are a few critical things to contend with:

1) the real import of the "closely but not perfectly reproduced" the scents is that the chemicals were pretty darn close to the real deal. A solid weakener would be 'the chemicals only vaguely resembled the real scents' or 'the chemicals were a terrible fascimile of the real scents', and (A) effectively dismisses that potential objection.

2) the scents don't need to be 100% perfectly exactly like the real scents in order to give us valid information - they just need to be worthwhile approximations. Where the line is, exactly, may be a bit of a judgment call, but it's safe to say that 'closely but not perfectly' is well over it.

3) even if they aren't absolutely perfect, the control group is still knocking it out of the park compared to the sulfur group - why is that? If we didn't have a control group, and were just analyzing a single group, then any imperfect in the scents could potentially be the cause for poor performance. But we have a control group smelling the same 99.9% similar scents, and identifying them loads better. This slight imperfection in the scents doesn't explain the difference we see between the performance of the two groups.

Does that help?

The interpretation of term "closely not perfectly" seems like a judgment call at best. Basing an argument on such a judgment call doesn't make for a good argument. If the stimulus mentioned "an attempted reproduction of scents using chemicals" or something to that effect then I'd agree with the answer choice. In that case, the stimulus would mean that any answer choice that enables to fill the gap, the attempt at scent reproduction, by making it closer to perfect doesn't weaken the argument. But that's not what stim has. It has "chemically reproduced scents" and attempt at exposing thus gap further by saying "not perfectly" in A only weakens it.
To weaken an argument as far as I know, you don't need a "solid weakner" but just a weakner. Also, how do we know "don't need to be 100% perfectly exactly as the real scents?" May be that affects the study a lot, who knows. May be sulfur makes the sense of smell so precise that the slight difference in reproduction of scents is making the group mis-identify the scents in the first place compared to the control group.

[Jeffort]

I can see why you would be tempted to think that (A) weakened here, but there are a few critical things to contend with:

1) the real import of the "closely but not perfectly reproduced" the scents is that the chemicals were pretty darn close to the real deal. A solid weakener would be 'the chemicals only vaguely resembled the real scents' or 'the chemicals were a terrible fascimile of the real scents', and (A) effectively dismisses that potential objection.

2) the scents don't need to be 100% perfectly exactly like the real scents in order to give us valid information - they just need to be worthwhile approximations. Where the line is, exactly, may be a bit of a judgment call, but it's safe to say that 'closely but not perfectly' is well over it.

3) even if they aren't absolutely perfect, the control group is still knocking it out of the park compared to the sulfur group - why is that? If we didn't have a control group, and were just analyzing a single group, then any imperfect in the scents could potentially be the cause for poor performance. But we have a control group smelling the same 99.9% similar scents, and identifying them loads better. This slight imperfection in the scents doesn't explain the difference we see between the performance of the two groups.

Does that help?

The interpretation of term "closely not perfectly" seems like a judgment call at best. Basing an argument on such a judgment call doesn't make for a good argument. If the stimulus mentioned "an attempted reproduction of scents using chemicals" or something to that effect then I'd agree with the answer choice. In that case, the stimulus would mean that any answer choice that enables to fill the gap, the attempt at scent reproduction, by making it closer to perfect doesn't weaken the argument. But that's not what stim has. It has "chemically reproduced scents" and attempt at exposing thus gap further by saying "not perfectly" in A only weakens it.
To weaken an argument as far as I know, you don't need a "solid weakner" but just a weakner. Also, how do we know "don't need to be 100% perfectly exactly as the real scents?" May be that affects the study a lot, who knows. May be sulfur makes the sense of smell so precise that the slight difference in reproduction of scents is making the group mis-identify the scents in the first place compared to the control group.

I think I understand your line of thinking for this point of view, however it appears to be based on an unwarranted assumption/misinterpretation of the phrase "chemically reproduced scents" in the argument since you contrasted that with an alternate phrasing that includes 'attempted'. You appear to be assuming that the premise as stated with the word 'reproduced' (and not including any limiting words such as 'attempted') necessarily means and is treated by the argument to mean that the chemical reproductions of the scents are perfect copies/reproductions of the natural scents. That is a false assumption/interpretation of the meaning of that premise, specifically of what the word 'reproduced' actually literally means/establishes.

You are assuming that a reproduction of something is a perfect copy unless otherwise specified, and that (A) contradicts/undermines that explicit meaning of the premise and thereby weakens the argument. There are numerous logical problems with that line of thinking.

Interpreting "chemically reproduced scents" to mean that the reproductions are necessarily perfect since it wasn't otherwise specified (like in your re-phrased version of the premise with 'attempted' added in) is contrary to the literal meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'reproduction'. A reproduction is by definition a copy of something else, which by definition is not necessarily a perfect replica of the original. To be considered to be a reproduction of something else, it can be an exact copy but doesn't have to be, it only has to be similar. You are falsely assuming that a copy/reproduction is necessarily a perfect copy unless it is otherwise specified that it is not, which is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words and warranted assumptions about what they mean/necessarily establish.

Copy:
1. a thing made to be similar or identical to another.
2. make a similar or identical version of; reproduce.

It's common sense and warranted to assume that --unless proven otherwise--, a copy/reproduction/replica of something might NOT be 100% identical to the original. You have it backwards and are assuming the opposite is true, that a reproduction is an exact copy unless otherwise specified. Think about it logically with the basic literal meanings of the words along with basic common sense. Reproduction literally means it is different than the original since it's a copy. Common sense and literal meaning tells us that copies don't have to be perfectly identical to the original to be properly referred to as a copy/reproduction, the word only requires/establishes/conveys that the things are similar. Being identical is not a requirement of being a copy/reproduction and is not conveyed by the word even though something identical would of course satisfy the definition since it's perfectly similar.

Since similar is a pretty vague word that leaves open a wide range of possible levels of similarity between the things, from only slightly similar to nearly perfect to identical, just saying something is a reproduction inherently leaves open the possibility that it's a poor copy with only some similarity but still a lot of other differences. (A) knocks out the vagueness regarding amount of similarity/differences the word reproduction leaves open to possibility by telling you specifically how similar the chemical scents are to the original scents, close to perfect!

In short, you are misinterpreting the literal meaning of the phrase 'chemically reproduced scents' by treating 'reproduced' as if it necessarily means 'exact copy' even though the word doesn't actually establish that according to dictionary definitions and proper use/interpretation.

Did I interpret your point of view correctly in this analysis?

Also, beyond or instead of relying on sterile dictionary definitions to understand the issues with your point of view, you can just use common sense about the subject matter of the argument.

You are not only allowed to use common sense and basic real world knowledge about run of the mill pedestrian subjects when interpreting and analyzing the subject matter of LSAT arguments, you are expected to do so when the topic/subject matter is something college age educated people are expected to have basic knowledge about/real life exposure to. LSAC assumes that test takers have enough real world knowledge/experience to understand what they are talking about regarding chemical reproductions of common everyday life scents such as what they specified: foods, spices and flowers. Ever smelled a scented candle? Air fresheners? potpourri? What are the common fragrances? (hint: food, spices, flowers!) How close are the fragrances to the real world scent of what the label says it's supposed to smell like? Having a clue that chemical reproductions of flowers, foods and spices don't always smell exactly or even really similar to their real world counterparts is something LSAC assumes college age educated people would have experienced and noticed in life and recognize/understand is a possibility within the context of this argument. It doesn't require any specialized education or knowledge to know this, all you need to have done is at least encountered some scratch and sniff stickers somewhere along the way in grade school.

[jmjm]

I disagree even as I think I understand your point. The points you make can just as easily be used to make the opposite argument and it shows how much of a judgment call this question is. My example regarding the wording of the question as an attempted reproduction was geared toward showing that in order to interpret the AC as the question wants us to interpret it, the stimulus has to be more clear or else it'd risk making distractions interfere with the quality of the question. I think the latter ended up being the case here. In the question as-is, it's unusually unclear as to who is to decide how much of an impact a slight difference in smell can make. In the scientific context, which is the context of the study is the question, a reproduction can easily be understood to be a full and is used often times as such. How about laboratory generated food item; is that somehow less than a complete food item? "close but perfect" can be pretty close to 99% but such little gap is exactly what can be seen as a flaw in the study making its results incorrect. I think a significant unwarranted assumption being used in justifying A is the notion that "closer not perfect" somehow leans toward not weakening the argument. That's open to variable interpretation and unusual for strengthen/weaken questions. For all we know sulfur exposure is making the group more discerning in smelling things leading to the difference in results. Consider this,

Study S is supposed to use M for evaluating a group X.
Instead S uses a reproduction N of M.
Study S based on N shows that a group X performed worse than the control group in doing task T.
Therefore, group X is bad at T.
AC: N closely but not perfectly reproduced M.

If not shown the credited response for q21 to remove hindsight bias, it'd seem that AC shows a flaw weakening the argument.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

jmjm, let's try a slightly different approach. You're bothered by the fact that the slight imperfection in the scents could make some difference to the studies final results, and I'll grant you that. But let's turn back to what the argument core is and what we're really trying to weaken here:

• PREMISE: Phenomenon (one group outperforms another on smell test)
  CONCLUSION: Explanation for phenomenon (because sulfur exposure)

The assumption here might be characterized as an assumption that prolonged sulfur exposure is the only possible explanation for the difference in performance.

Weakening something about the study is not good enough - we need to weaken the explanation for the specific phenomenon being cited. We need an alternate explanation for the difference in performance between the two groups. For example, if an answer choice said that everyone cheated on the study, and as a result got twice as many scents correct as they should have, that would give us a *very* flawed study, but the difference between the two groups would still hold up just fine. All four of the other answer choices give us clear and definite alternate explanations for that difference in performance all by themselves, without us having to add anything to them.

(A) doesn't give us a direct alternative explanation for the difference between the two groups. If the scents were imperfect, then the most likely result would be that all groups would do slightly worse than they would have otherwise done. In order to make (A) give us an explanation for the difference, you have to add a ton of extra imagined information (the idea that maybe sulfur makes the factory workers' sense of smell so incredibly precise that this tiny imperfect throws them off completely). If you have to work that hard, and add that much unlikely information to the answer choice, that's a very strong indication that the answer choice itself does not weaken - the weakening that's happening is because of all the stuff you are adding to the answer choice.

In contrast, the other answer choices weaken without adding anything wild and crazy, and they offer direct explanations for the difference between the two groups.

[Jeffort]

If neither of these points of view for recognizing why (A) is not a flawed answer satisfy you, there is another problem with your point of view that you need to change right away to conform your LSAT LR analysis methods properly to how LSAT weaken/strengthen questions operate.

Your point of view is entirely based on (A) challenging an explicit premise of the argument. Attacking/disputing the truth/validity of premises is not a method of logic/logical reasoning. LSAC says this directly in their Guide to Logical Reasoning Questions chapter in the LSAT SuperPrep on page 15. "Premises, of course, can also be challenged, on grounds such as factual accuracy, but such challenges are not matters of logic."

Logical reasoning is about evaluating and weakening/strengthening the reasoning/assumptions of the argument created by the relationships between the premises and the offered conclusion, not about evaluating, validating or disputing the truth/factual validity of explicit premises. Those types of attacks are for real world attack of the truth of arguments and are not logical reasoning methods since they are about facts and truth of evidence, not about validity of the reasoning being employed to arrive at the conclusion. You are focusing your analysis on things that are irrelevant for purposes of getting better at solving LR questions. Correct answers on weaken/strengthen/flawed method of reasoning/necessary assumption/sufficient assumption/evaluate the argument question types relate to assumptions made by the reasoning of the argument, not to the truth/validity of explicit premises.

Anytime you think an answer choice on a weaken question undermines by directly attacking an explicit premise, you are making some sort of unwarranted assumption that is allowing you to believe the AC attacks the premise itself. That is what you are doing here, assuming the explicit premise by itself establishes that the chemical reproductions of the scents are perfect copies of the real world scents and that (A) weakens that interpretation. Due to the dictionary definitions I mentioned, that is an unwarranted interpretation of the word since you are assuming the premise as is DOESN'T already allow for the possibility that the scents aren't perfectly reproduced even though the literal meaning of the word reproduction doesn't dictate perfection. Your interpretation is contrary to valid common meaning of the word and common sense.

Also read the stuff I added to my post above about using common sense about the subject matter when interpreting and analyzing arguments. A large part of your justifications rely on ignoring common sense about the subject matter and basic real world context of the argument when interpreting things and what is being talked about. You are not supposed to interpret and analyze LR arguments in unreasonable, divorced from basic real world realities/possibilities purely logic blank slate of knowledge context that requires you to suspend/ignore common sense and common knowledge possibilities about basic topics college educated adults are supposed to have basic real world exposure to from basic life experience and/or basic education.

Your interpretation of 'chemically reproduced scents' of foods, spices and flowers (explicitly mentioned so you can use common sense/common knowledge about air fresheners, candles, scratch and sniff stickers, artificially scented/flavored candy, things with those scents, etc. when evaluating possibilities consistent with the given evidence/subject matter) ignores common sense and requires you to suspend common real world knowledge about the subject matter of the argument. Seriously, head to the grocery store, grab a few pieces of fruit, some spices and flowers, then head to the candle/air freshener aisle and do a little test. LSAC doesn't require you to whitewash reality from your brain in the analysis. Notice the instructions at the top of page one of every LR section where it includes this statement: "You should not make assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage."

[jmjm]

Nice job in writing a post that shows somewhat petty intellectual arrogance based not on strong reasons but possibly borne out of a jaded attitude toward any disagreement about interpreting a term. These questions apparently have a higher bar for reason. A more effective job would have been to take the example posted earlier and prove using it if you could. LSAC does a wonderful task in making high quality questions based on logic but being blinded by hindsight bias does no good. I vaguely recall a thread on this board a while ago where someone wrote to lsac about an issue with a question and lsac defended by falling back on and some safety net language. That's usually when one is too far from meta level explanations.

[Jeffort]

Nice job in writing a post that shows somewhat petty intellectual arrogance based not on strong reasons but possibly borne out of a jaded attitude toward any disagreement about interpreting a term. These questions apparently have a higher bar for reason. A more effective job would have been to take the example posted earlier and prove using it if you could. LSAC does a wonderful task in making high quality questions based on logic but being blinded by hindsight bias does no good. I vaguely recall a thread on this board a while ago where someone wrote to lsac about an issue with a question and lsac defended by falling back on and some safety net language. That's usually when one is too far from meta level explanations.

Nice strawman combined with ad hominem response. Grow up. Insulting and making derogatory unwarranted statements about people when they don't agree with you is not valid reasoning or a mature response. I see I wasted my time writing out a detailed logical explanation and detailed responses to your points of view and reasoning since my efforts have fallen on deaf ears and now been met with personal hostility and animosity. Good luck improving on the LSAT with that recalcitrant attitude. Your logic is incorrect and you are ignoring everything both me and Christine have clearly explained about the full logic of the question and answer choice.

Even though you've already made up your mind about the intellectual integrity and attitude of LSAC, if you are convinced it's an unfair/flawed question, direct your thoughts, personal feelings and frustrations to LSAC and towards textbooks about the parameters of basic logical reasoning with inductive arguments, not at me.

Your example argument that is devoid of substance/topic context is not the same as the argument in this question and therefore doesn't support your position.

Study S is supposed to use M for evaluating a group X.
Instead S uses a reproduction N of M.
Study S based on N shows that a group X performed worse than the control group in doing task T.
Therefore, group X is bad at T.
AC: N closely but not perfectly reproduced M.

We don't have a 'supposed to use M but uses N and it's supposed to be exactly the same thing' situation like your example does. Even in that situation, in order to evaluate whether N being slightly different than M would impact the argument, you also need to know the context and a little more information about the task to know whether or not a slight difference would matter for the task being tested. You are assuming similar types of situations exist in or are important to the reasoning of this particular argument, they do not and are not.

Chemical reproductions of the natural scents of foods, spices and flowers cannot reasonably be assumed to necessarily mean the scents are perfect replicas just because there isn't additional explicit text that says they aren't. Reproduction inherently means it might not be a perfect copy. That is the core of your issue, falsely assuming the original premise of the argument necessarily means/establishes that the chemical reproductions smell exactly like the real items prior to taking (A) into account. If you don't make that unwarranted assumption, (A) wouldn't weaken anything since reproduction doesn't establish perfect copy. This isn't a matter of debate about acceptable subjective interpretations when going by common dictionary definitions for valid interpretation purposes.

[Clearly]

Nice job in writing a post that shows somewhat petty intellectual arrogance based not on strong reasons but possibly borne out of a jaded attitude toward any disagreement about interpreting a term. These questions apparently have a higher bar for reason. A more effective job would have been to take the example posted earlier and prove using it if you could. LSAC does a wonderful task in making high quality questions based on logic but being blinded by hindsight bias does no good. I vaguely recall a thread on this board a while ago where someone wrote to lsac about an issue with a question and lsac defended by falling back on and some safety net language. That's usually when one is too far from meta level explanations.

Oh jesus, man up and get your score before you turn into a crybaby. These people took the time to type long and detailed explanations for you, and you act like this?

[jmjm]

Oh jesus, man up and get your score before you turn into a crybaby. These people took the time to type long and detailed explanations for you, and you act like this?

Sigh don't know what to tell ya This has lost its value as my posts' argument has been distorted. If that's all you trolled by to say then you've too much time on your hands. For such trolls, god speed.
A lot of words with little substance, it's the poster above who needs growing up. I'm sure jeffort etc take time to write and think they're right; I just agree to disagree with their view on this. Good luck.

[Puffin]

Sigh don't know what to tell ya This has lost its value as my posts' argument has been distorted. If that's all you dropped by to say then you've too much time on your hands and god speed.
A lot of words with little substance, it's the poster above who needs growing up. I'm sure jeffort etc take time to write and think they're right; I just agree to disagree with their view on this. Good luck.

[Jeffort]

Oh jesus, man up and get your score before you turn into a crybaby. These people took the time to type long and detailed explanations for you, and you act like this?

Sigh don't know what to tell ya This has lost its value as my posts' argument has been distorted. If that's all you trolled by to say then you've too much time on your hands. For such trolls, god speed.
A lot of words with little substance, it's the poster above who needs growing up. I'm sure jeffort etc take time to write and think they're right; I just agree to disagree with their view on this. Good luck.

Why are you again throwing out insults and making this personal? We are discussing the logic of an LSAT question. You've now twice personally insulted myself and others that responded and tried to answer your questions to clear up issues about this LR question. This is the LSAT Prep forum, not the insult, start fights with others about personal stuff and try to win arguments part of the board. This discussion isn't about being right and winning an argument, it's about the logic of the question to help people (like you since you asked the question) better understand the logic important to answering LSAT questions in order to get a higher score. I don't understand why you suddenly made it personal and started insulting me after I responded with explanations of some of the logic of the question that you specifically asked about. It's fine if you don't agree with any of the explanations that I or the other two LSAT teachers offered you about this question, but that doesn't warrant you suddenly insulting us and making things personal.

I'm offended that you resorted to personally insulting me because I offered an answer to your question that you don't like.

If you would like to discuss the logic of the question and LSAT stuff more for clarification, more discussion or whatever, please do and I'll be happy to discuss things more, but not if you are going to make things personal and treat it like this is a fight somebody has to win or whatever for ego purposes since that's not the priority here, at least not for me. I participate on this forum to help people get better at understanding and answering LSAT questions, not to win arguments with strangers on the internet, that's what FB is for.

[Clearly]

Oh jesus, man up and get your score before you turn into a crybaby. These people took the time to type long and detailed explanations for you, and you act like this?

Sigh don't know what to tell ya This has lost its value as my posts' argument has been distorted. If that's all you trolled by to say then you've too much time on your hands. For such trolls, god speed.
A lot of words with little substance, it's the poster above who needs growing up. I'm sure jeffort etc take time to write and think they're right; I just agree to disagree with their view on this. Good luck.

Why are you again throwing out insults and making this personal? We are discussing the logic of an LSAT question. You've now twice personally insulted myself and others that responded and tried to answer your questions to clear up issues about this LR question. This is the LSAT Prep forum, not the insult, start fights with others about personal stuff and try to win arguments part of the board. This discussion isn't about being right and winning an argument, it's about the logic of the question to help people (like you since you asked the question) better understand the logic important to answering LSAT questions in order to get a higher score. I don't understand why you suddenly made it personal and started insulting me after I responded with explanations of some of the logic of the question that you specifically asked about. It's fine if you don't agree with any of the explanations that I or the other two LSAT teachers offered you about this question, but that doesn't warrant you suddenly insulting us and making things personal.

If you would like to discuss the logic of the question and LSAT stuff more for clarification, more discussion or whatever, please do and I'll be happy to discuss things more, but not if you are going to make things personal and treat it like this is a fight somebody has to win or whatever for ego purposes since that's not the priority here, at least not for me. I participate on this forum to help people get better at understanding and answering LSAT questions, not to win arguments with strangers on the internet, that's what FB is for.

Are you implying you win our Facebook arguments?

[Jeffort]

Are you implying you win our Facebook arguments?

ha ha, god no, that's why we still have some disagreements! Thank god LSAT questions aren't like political arguments, it would make having exactly one objectively correct answer impossible! I'll save my thoughts about the ACA/ObamaCare for FB.