I think I see why C is wrong, but just wanted to confirm/get other's thoughts here. Is C wrong because it doesn't account for the difference in time between people leaving the spot where others are waiting quietly and the people who are being honked at?
Thanks
PT 61 LR 1 question 11 Forum
-
Christine (MLSAT)
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm
Re: PT 61 LR 1 question 11
That's exactly it.
This argument is a classic example of "phenomenon-explanation"; these arguments generally assume that no other explanations could explain the phenomenon. As a result, an excellent weakener will provide an alternate explanation for the phenomenon. Here, there are really TWO phenomena, but closely related - we need something that would explain both of these to really weaken the argument.
(C) provides a great alternate explanation for the difference in time between 'no one there' and 'someone there', but doesn't do a darn thing to explain the difference between 'polite someone there' and 'aggressive someone there'.
Notice that (E) does something very similar - this would explain the difference between 'aggressive someone there' and everything else, but doesn't do a thing to explain the difference between 'polite someone there' and 'no one there'.
(A) gives us a solid potential explanation for BOTH of those differences that does not rely on feelings of possessiveness.
This argument is a classic example of "phenomenon-explanation"; these arguments generally assume that no other explanations could explain the phenomenon. As a result, an excellent weakener will provide an alternate explanation for the phenomenon. Here, there are really TWO phenomena, but closely related - we need something that would explain both of these to really weaken the argument.
(C) provides a great alternate explanation for the difference in time between 'no one there' and 'someone there', but doesn't do a darn thing to explain the difference between 'polite someone there' and 'aggressive someone there'.
Notice that (E) does something very similar - this would explain the difference between 'aggressive someone there' and everything else, but doesn't do a thing to explain the difference between 'polite someone there' and 'no one there'.
(A) gives us a solid potential explanation for BOTH of those differences that does not rely on feelings of possessiveness.
-
HeirCroc
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:01 pm
Re: PT 61 LR 1 question 11
Christine,
Thanks. I can't recall having seen a question with two phenomena that needed to be addressed, or maybe this is just the first time I was fooled by one. Either way, I'll be prepared for the situation next time. How often would you say the LSAT requires us to do this?
Also, it's interesting to me that the general rule of degree of weakening not mattering--as long as you weaken the argument at all, you're good-- doesn't apply here. Like, you would think an answer that addresses why there is a difference between in time between someone quietly there/no one there 'kind of' weakens the argument. I understand intuitively why this isn't the case, that C doesn't weaken the argument, but do you see what I'm getting at?
Thanks. I can't recall having seen a question with two phenomena that needed to be addressed, or maybe this is just the first time I was fooled by one. Either way, I'll be prepared for the situation next time. How often would you say the LSAT requires us to do this?
Also, it's interesting to me that the general rule of degree of weakening not mattering--as long as you weaken the argument at all, you're good-- doesn't apply here. Like, you would think an answer that addresses why there is a difference between in time between someone quietly there/no one there 'kind of' weakens the argument. I understand intuitively why this isn't the case, that C doesn't weaken the argument, but do you see what I'm getting at?
