LR PT35 S4 Q23 I DONT GET IT! Forum

[greenapples]

I looked at explanations from various LSAT prep forums and I still don't get why (A) is wrong.


The higher the altitude, the thinner the air. Since Mexico City's altitude is higher than that of Panama City, the air must be thinner in Mexico City than in Panama City.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

(A) As one gets older one gets wiser. Since Henrietta is older than her daughter, Henrietta must be wiser than her daughter

Correct Answer: (D) The older a tree, the more ring it has. The tree in Lou's yard is older than the tree in Theresa's Yard. Therefore, the tree in Lou's yard must have more rings than does the tree in Theresa's yard.


I read that (A) is wrong because "as one gets older, one gets wiser" is not comparing between X and Y, as it should, but rather a personal development. For some reason, this explanation doesn't hit a homerun for me. Can anyone break this down easier? Thanks.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

This question is pretty tricky.

Let's take a look at what could have made (A) a valid answer. If it had said, instead:

• The older a person is, the wiser they are

it would have been totally cool. Instead, it said:

• As one gets older one gets wiser

So, what's the difference? In the rewrite, it's saying there's a spectrum of age/wisdom that EVERYONE is on, and the further down the spectrum you are in age, the further down the spectrum you also must be in wisdom. Because this spectrum is set to be universal, that means we can compare different people with it. If "older" always means "wiser", that means if person A is older than person B, they must also be wiser than person B.

Now, how is that different than the original? The original didn't give us a general spectrum that EVERYONE is on together - instead, I have my OWN age/wisdom spectrum. That spectrum only applies to me. "As one gets older, one gets wiser" means that older-me is wiser than younger-me. But I can't use that to compare myself to someone else, because the relationship only applies to one person at a time.

Let's say I start out life as a horrifically foolish and unwise person. After 30 years, I've got to be at least a bit wiser than I used to be, but I'm still REALLY REALLY foolish. Then you've got Bob, who was born super-wise. After 20 years, he's gotten even MORE wise, by the rule. But how do he and I compare to one another? The rule doesn't tell us that I must be wiser than Bob, and in this scenarios, I wouldn't be.

The original stimulus and the correct answer both use the universal spectrum. Higher places always have thinner air than lower places. Older trees always have more rings than younger trees.

What do you think?

[Panoptikon]

This question is pretty tricky.

Let's take a look at what could have made (A) a valid answer. If it had said, instead:

• The older a person is, the wiser they are

it would have been totally cool. Instead, it said:

• As one gets older one gets wiser

Now, how is that different than the original? The original didn't give us a general spectrum that EVERYONE is on together - instead, I have my OWN age/wisdom spectrum. That spectrum only applies to me. "As one gets older, one gets wiser" means that older-me is wiser than younger-me. But I can't use that to compare myself to someone else, because the relationship only applies to one person at a time.

What do you think?

It's a bit problematic for me. The sentence, "As one gets older one gets wiser," IMO, is making a universal claim about every object in the intended domain of quantification (i.e., Henrietta and her daughter). Consider the following statements: "Someone who is A (tall) is also B (big)" OR "One who is A (tall) is B (big)". Not perfect examples, but they illustrate how the seemingly existential determiners "someone" or "one" are actually making universal claims. Any thoughts?

[whacka]

.

[Kinky John]

Any thoughts?

Overthinking it.

One or someone isn't the problematic part - the gets wiser part is.