This is the Attacks on an Opponent in a Debate Question.
I'm not sure why the answer works. Can someone explain it to me?
PT33 S1 Q21 Forum
-
WaltGrace83
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:55 pm
Re: PT33 S1 Q21
Hi there! Just in case you didn't know (and I am definitely not saying you shouldn't post specific questions on TLS because everyone here is totally fine with it), Manhattan has a pretty good forum for specific LSAT questions. Either way, if my explanation isn't sufficient, you can also look here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q21 ... 212d7fdfb3
Anyway, principle questions work kind of like sufficient assumption questions in that you want to - in a typically very formulaic way - connect the premises to the conclusion. Here, we get the following argument:
Premise: Attacks (on an opponent's character) do not confront opponent's argument; they just cast doubt on opponent's moral right to be in a debate at all
Conclusions: Attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided in political debates
After understanding the core, you need to pre-phrase the assumption in your head. The conclusion brings up something new (that these attacks should be avoided). If the conclusion brings up new ideas/terminology, there must be an assumption happening! From the most basic standpoint, the author is ASSUMING that there is a problem with not confronting an opponent's argument, or perhaps that there is a problem with casting doubt on an opponent's moral right to be in a debate at all.
Because this is a principle question, I have expectations:
(1) The answer choice will look something like my pre-phrased assumptions
(2) The answer choice will be a bit more general than my pre-phrase assumptions
(A) Okay, but this doesn't if these attacks should be avoided. We don't need to now more about the attacks on the opponent's character. Eliminate.
(B) Who cares? Where did "impressing" come from? Eliminate.
(C) We get the critical phrase "should be avoided." Skip.
(D) We need to know nothing about entering in further political debates. Eliminate.
(E) "Should be raised" is interesting so I'll read on. "If they are relevant to the opponent's argument..." hmm. We don't know anything about this. Are questions of character relevant? Are they not? The stimulus never tells us so it cannot be a right answer. Eliminate.
(C) is the only one that we haven't eliminated so let's confirm this as the right answer. "Debating techniques that do not confront every argument should be avoided." This seems very out of scope. Yet is it, really? Actually no. What do we know about the attacks on an opponent's character? We know that "such attacks do not confront the opponent's argument!" Thus, these attacks "do not confront every argument" because we know that they do not "confront the opponent's argument." (C) is thus saying that these specific techniques should be avoided. This is a perfect answer, though more general than what I sometimes expect.
Does that clear it up for you?
Anyway, principle questions work kind of like sufficient assumption questions in that you want to - in a typically very formulaic way - connect the premises to the conclusion. Here, we get the following argument:
Premise: Attacks (on an opponent's character) do not confront opponent's argument; they just cast doubt on opponent's moral right to be in a debate at all
Conclusions: Attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided in political debates
After understanding the core, you need to pre-phrase the assumption in your head. The conclusion brings up something new (that these attacks should be avoided). If the conclusion brings up new ideas/terminology, there must be an assumption happening! From the most basic standpoint, the author is ASSUMING that there is a problem with not confronting an opponent's argument, or perhaps that there is a problem with casting doubt on an opponent's moral right to be in a debate at all.
Because this is a principle question, I have expectations:
(1) The answer choice will look something like my pre-phrased assumptions
(2) The answer choice will be a bit more general than my pre-phrase assumptions
(A) Okay, but this doesn't if these attacks should be avoided. We don't need to now more about the attacks on the opponent's character. Eliminate.
(B) Who cares? Where did "impressing" come from? Eliminate.
(C) We get the critical phrase "should be avoided." Skip.
(D) We need to know nothing about entering in further political debates. Eliminate.
(E) "Should be raised" is interesting so I'll read on. "If they are relevant to the opponent's argument..." hmm. We don't know anything about this. Are questions of character relevant? Are they not? The stimulus never tells us so it cannot be a right answer. Eliminate.
(C) is the only one that we haven't eliminated so let's confirm this as the right answer. "Debating techniques that do not confront every argument should be avoided." This seems very out of scope. Yet is it, really? Actually no. What do we know about the attacks on an opponent's character? We know that "such attacks do not confront the opponent's argument!" Thus, these attacks "do not confront every argument" because we know that they do not "confront the opponent's argument." (C) is thus saying that these specific techniques should be avoided. This is a perfect answer, though more general than what I sometimes expect.
Does that clear it up for you?
