PT 71 S1Q10 LR and grasping beyond the stimulus Forum

[SpiritofFire]

I've been noticing some really disturbing questions on Logical Reasoning in the most recent preptests. Usually for me, they end up being a time sink. I'll probably get them wrong too. It seems to show up most often in the form of disagree/agree questions like the question on the tread title. It still seems impossible to me, but I showed this question to someone with no LSAT experience and they got it about 30 seconds, which may be telling....not sure what exactly.

Here's the question outline:
What do the punks disagree on?

Punk A: scientific discipline requires measurement. happiness is entirely subjective, so it cannot be be measured.

Punk B: optometry relies on patient reports, just like how happiness research relies on reports on what people feel. Optometry is obviously a scientific discipline.

I eliminated all the answer choices, but The accredited answer is C: a scientific discipline can rely on subjective reports. All I can see for A that if it's entirely subjective, it cannot be measured, and therefore cannot be studied as a scientific discipline. How do we know A thinks relying partially on subjective reports is not allowed, even if measurement is involved too?

The analogy I've thought up: I cannot accept a boring book cover. This cover is boring since it's entirely blue.

How can you leap to the conclusion the acceptance precludes the color blue altogether? Surely it could be possible for an artist to rely on a little blue without being boring.

This seems like a concept the LSAT expects us to catch. It seems to me that we're supposed to go beyond and make jumps not warranted by the stimulus. Is there a good way to know when and how to do this? How would you guys approach this question? Or maybe I missed something deep on question 10.

[SpiritofFire]

Actually I'm inclined to agree. I am willing to accept that saying optometry is a scientific discipline is common sense and can be assumed without specific mention. However... The question asks what they DISAGREE on.



* edit* hey! someone deleted their post! Not talking to myself, I swear!

[ScottRiqui]

Actually I'm inclined to agree. I am willing to accept that saying optometry is a scientific discipline is common sense and can be assumed without specific mention. However... The question asks what they DISAGREE on.

Yep, that's why I deleted my post - I misread what the question was asking. I can't look up the exact wording of the problem because I don't have PT71, but I'm at a loss - I really can't see why PA wouldn't be able to accept subjective reports along with objective measurements in a scientific discipline.

[SpiritofFire]

Actually I'm inclined to agree. I am willing to accept that saying optometry is a scientific discipline is common sense and can be assumed without specific mention. However... The question asks what they DISAGREE on.

Yep, that's why I deleted my post - I misread what the question was asking. I can't look up the exact wording of the problem because I don't have PT71, but I'm at a loss - I really can't see why PA wouldn't be able to accept subjective reports along with objective measurements in a scientific discipline.

Yea..i wish I could just post the question verbatim, but I'd probably be banned.

What's really interesting about your reasoning is that it led me to pick answer D:
Happiness research is as much a scientific discipline as optometry.

When I discovered I'd have to make some sort of jump in logic, I was willing to accept that B was inferring happiness research is a scientific discipline... At the very least it shouldn't be ruled out. That's the tacit purpose of his statements. Then I made the decision that it was acceptable as common sense that optometry was a scientific discipline. With that D, is very attractive. A disagrees because he doesn't think happiness is a scientific discipline while B seems to imply that it is.

But since it's incorrect, that assumption is unwarranted. Not the assumption of the month I guess...

[Nonconsecutive]

I don't have the question in front of me, but isn't that one that asks about which answer is most supported?

[ScottRiqui]

Even with my reasoning, I still don't like D, because both speakers seem to agree that scientific disciplines require objective measurements at a minimum, and there's no mention of objective measurements being possible in the study of happiness, so I don't think either one of them is advocating for happiness study being considered a scientific discipline.

[SpiritofFire]

I don't have the question in front of me, but isn't that one that asks about which answer is most supported?

Yes of course... But ones gotta be an answer and you have to make an assumption somewhere to pick an answer. What do you do when everything seems wrong? Pick an assumption and roll with it I guess. But which ones are safe? It better not be random or I'll lose all respect for LSAT. usually answer choices are airtight, so I don't think that's the case.

[SpiritofFire]

Even with my reasoning, I still don't like D, because both speakers seem to agree that scientific disciplines require objective measurements at a minimum, and there's no mention of objective measurements being possible in the study of happiness, so I don't think either one of them is advocating for happiness study being considered a scientific discipline.

Woa, not even B huh? Pretty strict, nice.

Here are the other answer choices:
A) happiness is entirely subjective
B) optometry is a scientific discipline
D)Happiness research is as much a scientific discipline as optometry
E) if it cannot be measured, experience is entirely subjective

[Nonconsecutive]

On the face of it you could eliminate: A because Punk B doesn't give an opinion on that statement, B because Punk A doesn't mention it, D because Punk B isn't saying that happiness research "is as" scientific as optometry, and E because it has it backwards entirely (it should be Entirely Subjective > Cannot be Measured)

[SpiritofFire]

Yea I did so, on my first pass along with C due to the entirely/ partially differentiation. Then I started to scramble for assumptions I'm supposed to make not a good feeling >,<

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Here's what I wrote:

http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-1/q-10/

I think you missed the importance of one word: rely

You thought Vince might agree that a science can use objective reports. You're right, he probably would agree. But answer C is about whether a science can rely on objective reports. Reliance on the reports is far stronger – it sounds like the discipline would be studying something that can't be measured, which is what Vince thinks science can't do.

[SpiritofFire]

Here's what I wrote:

http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-1/q-10/

I think you missed the importance of one word: rely

You thought Vince might agree that a science can use objective reports. You're right, he probably would agree. But answer C is about whether a science can rely on objective reports. Reliance on the reports is far stronger – it sounds like the discipline would be studying something that can't be measured, which is what Vince thinks science can't do.

Actually I read your explaination before posting

It bothers me since it seems okay for a scientific discipline to rely on subjective reports and still allow stuff to be measured. Doctors often rely on subjective patient reports for diagnosis while still measuring blood pressure, temperature etc.

As for my analogy, it wasn't exactly accurate. Let's assume I want a cover depicting an ocean. A cover depicting an ocean may rely on the color blue, but doesn't have to necessarily be boring by being entirely blue....

I rely on my parents for some wisdom and advice for certain things. But I am also self sufficient in most aspects of my life. If I must have something, why must it be all consuming?

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Here's what I wrote:

http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-1/q-10/

I think you missed the importance of one word: rely

You thought Vince might agree that a science can use objective reports. You're right, he probably would agree. But answer C is about whether a science can rely on objective reports. Reliance on the reports is far stronger – it sounds like the discipline would be studying something that can't be measured, which is what Vince thinks science can't do.

Actually I read your explaination before posting

It bothers me since it seems okay for a scientific discipline to rely on subjective reports and still allow stuff to be measured. Doctors often rely on subjective patient reports for diagnosis while still measuring blood pressure, temperature etc.

As for my analogy, it wasn't exactly accurate. Let's assume I want a cover depicting an ocean. A cover depicting an ocean may rely on the color blue, but doesn't have to necessarily be boring by being entirely blue....

I rely on my parents for some wisdom and advice for certain things. But I am also self sufficient in most aspects of my life. If I must have something, why must it be all consuming?

Oh, I think I figured it out - your paraphrase of "Punk A" missed an important point, which I'll cover below. My previous explanation wasn't quite compelling, I'm going to edit it. I thought the question was so easy that I skimmed over the precise reason why C is right.

Note that I did NOT do this analysis when answering the question. Neither did your non-LSAT friend, which is probably why he got it right so fast.

Once you get a good sense for the test, it's a good idea to use your intuition and common sense a bit. They should be calibrated by study. The reason people say not to use them is because people's common sense leads them astray starting out, because they have no LSAT knowledge. But once you have experience, intuition is vital. On this question, my intuition screamed C, so much so that when I wrote the explanation I wasn't 100% clear on why it was write.

-------

Anyone, on to the question. This question is bizarrely literal. I had to use a conditional statement. I never do that on point at issue questions – it's simply not something they use, except here.

But, let's be literal. Why is answer C literally correct?

Vincent says that scientific disciplines cannot study things that cannot be measured. That's a conditional statement:

Studies something unmeasureable --> not science [This is vincent's belief]

Vince thinks subjective experiences can't be measured. Therefore, anything that studies subjective experience is unmeasureable, according to Vince.

Yolanda says optometry relies on subjective reports just as much as happiness research does. And she thinks optometry is a science. So she clearly disagrees with Vince's views.

(Presumably, relying on subjective reports = studying those objective reports. They're not synonyms, but they have overlap. Relying is broader than studying and includes studying, and studying is what Vincent disagrees with.)

Does that clear up your question? I