Top Law Schools

Why is A a necessary assumption?

The answer reads "One should avoid boring one's students when teaching a history course". The stimulus never mentioned anything about what should or shouldn't be done, it only stated what the best way for teaching history was.

Am I missing something here?

The LSAT regularly uses "X is the best way" and "we should do X" to mean the same thing.

If we wanted to be incredibly pedantic, we could argue that this connection requires an additional assumption that we should do things in the *best* way, but the LSAT considers this to be a fair usage of the language. If you try to argue that even though X is the "best" way, we still "shouldn't" do it, you'll tie yourself in knots.

This is a great example of the danger on relying on exact wording reflection in the answer choices. We see a lot of precise language reflection in correct answers on early questions, but the trend reverses as the questions get more difficult. In harder questions, the correct answer will often mean the same thing but use distinctly different language to reflect the same idea.

To test this out on this specific example, let's use the negation test on (A):
"One should NOT avoid boring the students". If we shouldn't avoid boring them, then the history classes would be just fine as is, with the students all nice and bored. How could we then argue that the BEST way to teach history is something altogether different?

This destroys the argument that the students' being bored now supports the idea that some OTHER way (where they aren't bored) is "best".

What do you think?

I understand your point, but I still can't get over the fact that nothing was mentioned about "what one should do".

If there is one thing that I learned from the LSAT and that has constantly rewarded me is to be overly critical and always stick to the text. It requires a leap to assume that "best way" is the same as "you should do this" in my opinion.

I think that, in a vacuum, it may be reasonable to think of "best way to do X" and "should do X" as different concepts.

But in the context of this question, which is about "teaching history," I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that (again, since it's given that we are "teaching Y") we should teach Y in the best way. In other words, we have "X is the best way to do Y," and "We are doing Y," so it is reasonable to conclude we should do Y through method X (teach history without boring our students).

I admire your holding the LSAC's feet to the fire, but I think that we may have to understand there to be a bridge between the logical gap (such as it is) between "X is the best method" and "we should do X." At least in this context.

On another note: whether or not you think this is a perfect answer choice, would you agree that it is preferable above all others (B-D)?

mohdban wrote:I understand your point, but I still can't get over the fact that nothing was mentioned about "what one should do".

If there is one thing that I learned from the LSAT and that has constantly rewarded me is to be overly critical and always stick to the text. It requires a leap to assume that "best way" is the same as "you should do this" in my opinion.

You're absolutely right that the LSAT rewards a high level of specificity, but there does come a point where specificity turns into splitting hairs on connotations of words.

What I've learned over the years is that the line between these two things is actually quite a *bright* line, even if it does not appear to be at first. The LSAT always employs some real meaning difference in the leaps that are impermissible. On the more difficult questions, though, they often use very different language to express the same essential meaning in correct answer choices - in these situations, trying to determine the precise connotation difference between two functional synonyms is both crazy-making and unproductive.

What you're quibbling with is a language difference only, and not actually a meaning difference of any real significance. Robert is right, though, that there are ways this would be an impermissible leap - but only if it changed the real meaning. For example:

• 1) The best way to relax on the weekend is to go to the beach.
  2) We should go to the beach this weekend.

There is an assumption being made here, but it's not a gap between "best way" and "we should". Instead, the gap centered around "to relax". This argument assumes that we should be trying to relax! But if I fix that part, then I clear up the gap.

• 1) The best way to relax on the weekend is to go to the beach.
  2) If we want to relax, we should go to the beach this weekend.

Now, the only difference left is the language difference between "X is the best way" and "We should do X". To name it an assumption would be saying that "we are assuming that we should do things in the best way."

Remember that the LSAT's instructions include this: "You should not make assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage." Assuming that we should NOT do things in the best way is essentially implausible, absent some really good reason why that would make any sense. (Perhaps we are actually educational saboteurs, and we want students to fail, <insert evil maniacal laugh>. It's possible, but it's so wild and crazy that it is implausible unless they make a point to let us know about it.)

You'll find that hair splitting will start to make many answers appear to be incorrect on some level. If you require perfect language reflection, you hamstring your ability to see meaning connections. Don't lose that critical eye and that demand for specificity, but make sure your target is set on true meaning differences, and not slight language variations.