I'm using the Loophole LSAT book by Ellen Cassidy. Currently doing the CLIR drill trying to find loopholes/assumptions the argument may be taking for granted. I was wondering if some people can help me with my answers on a handful of questions.
11) Feathers recently taken from seabirds stuffed and preserved in the 1880s have been found to contain only half as much mercury as feathers recently taken from living birds of the same species. Since mercury that accumulates in a seabird’s feathers as the feathers grow is derived from fish eaten by the bird, [ these results indicate that mercury levels in saltwater fish are higher now than they were 100 years ago.]
I identified the argument parts and the stimulus type correctly. For my CLIR I wrote down, “what if there is another source of mercury?” I was wondering if this was a form of attacking the premises? Most specifically the second one about mercury accumulating in feathers is derived from their fish diet.
12) Novel X and Novel Y are both semi-autobiographical novels and contain many very similar themes and situations, which might lead one to suspect plagiarism on the part of one of the authors. [However, it is more likely that the similarity of themes and situations in the two novels is merely coincidental] since both authors are from very similar backgrounds and have led similar lives.
On this one as well I identified the argument parts and stimulus type correctly. For my CLIR, I wrote “What if one of the authors sought to emulate the other’s life?” Because in my mind that would destroy the idea of the plagiarism being coincidental. But it seems so far off so I’m deeply uncertain if that could work.
18) In all cultures it is almost universally accepted that one has a moral duty to prevent members of one’s family from being harmed. Thus, few would deny that if a person is known by the person’s parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police. [ Hence, it is also likely to be widely accepted that it is sometimes morally right to obstruct the police in their work]
CLIR: What if the crime one’s family member committed causes someone else’s family harm? Would it be morally acceptable in that event to obstruct police work?
Would you classify this as a dangling variable? I do see the conflation of ideas but I’m really unsure as to how to attack it.
19) Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voter’s lives. But voters actually elect politician who instead promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems. Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of government intrusion. [ Thus, government intrusion into the lives of voters will Arely be substantially reduced over time in a democracy. ]
CLIR: what if voters don’t consider taxes to be a form of intrusion?
Would this be an acceptable loophole or am I attacking the premises? If the voters don’t consider gov’t assi. to be an intrusion then it will not necessarily be substantially reduced over time.
20) [We should accept the proposal to demolish the old train station] because the local historical society is dominated by people who have no commitment to long term economic well being. Preserving old buildings creates an impediment to new development, which is critical to economic health.
CLIR: What if the old train station draws in a lot of tourists and consumers?
My reasoning being that demolishing the building could be counterproductive if the goal is to protect economic health. Is that attacking the premises?
25) Some anthropologists argue that the human species could not have survived prehistoric times if the species had not evolved the ability to cope with diverse natural environments. However, there is considerable evidence that AA, a prehistoric species, also thrived in a diverse array of environments, but became extinct. [The anthropologists claim is false]
I answered, "what if this relative lacked specific faculties to help it survive?” Is that an acceptable loophole or is that also attacking the premises?
But I do see the conditional error that was made as well.
Question review, finding assumptions Forum
-
d_gosto
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2020 8:06 pm
Re: Question review, finding assumptions
I just started studying a few days ago and have encountered a few of these questions so I will try to give some input!
For 11, I seem to recall the answer being something about the preservation process potentially impacting the mercury levels in the bird. As far as the "what if there is another source of mercury?" question, there's no way we would be able to tell by just reading the stimulus and might not be relevant. The only relevant part seems to be the comparison between 1880s birds and recent birds-- not the source of mercury. As a general strategy I have been trying to assume that premise = truth (for the context of the question) and so asking about another source of mercury would be questioning the truth of the statement "mercury that accumulates in a seabird’s feathers as the feathers grow is derived from fish eaten by the bird," which implies that birds only accumulate mercury from fish they eat. If the premise had been "some mercury..." or even "most mercury..." then I think your question would be useful.
For 12, the question "“What if one of the authors sought to emulate the other’s life?” really has nothing to do with plagiarism. The speaker is only trying to argue that there was no plagiarism in the written texts of Novels X and Y. She does not talk about Author X or Author Y, but only their novels. Your question assumes too much the authors-- that they may have known each other and copied each other's experiences, none of which is mentioned.
For 18, I am not really sure what a "dangling variable" is, but what is jumping out to me is that the speaker doesn't consider whether there are other universally accepted principles that might influence the parents' decision. If the premise was "the moral duty to prevent members of one's family from being harmed trumps all other moral duties" then the argument would be stronger. But bringing in other families is really outside of what is stated in the argument and I am not sure how it would be incorporated.
For 19, you are attacking the premise. The premise states "money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of government intrusion." The assumed subject is the voter and while "can be considered" is much less direct than "is considered," the premise still implies that for the voters, taxes = intrusion.
For 20, the premises are that 1) the historical society (who presumably would like to keep the train station) is not committed to long term economic health, 2) keeping old buildings prevents new development and 3) new development is critical to economic health. It is not explicitly stated that the historical society wishes is opposed to new development but the speaker does characterize them in this way. The loophole I see is that the speaker never actually says that the historical society wishes to keep the train station but only says that they don't care about long term economic health. They are not necessarily a preservation society. This might just be splitting hairs though and I too am confused abut this question.
For 25, I think the loophole is more along the lines of: what if it takes more than just coping with diverse environments to survive prehistoric times? Maybe this is what you mean by the conditional. While you do need to "adapt to survive," which AA could do, you also need to be able to do other things which they presumably were unable to do, judging by their extinction:(
I hope some of this might be helpful. I am very new to this whole test and studying routine but would love to go back and forth with you (or anyone else who stumbles upon this thread) to share thoughts about questions and studying tips.
For 11, I seem to recall the answer being something about the preservation process potentially impacting the mercury levels in the bird. As far as the "what if there is another source of mercury?" question, there's no way we would be able to tell by just reading the stimulus and might not be relevant. The only relevant part seems to be the comparison between 1880s birds and recent birds-- not the source of mercury. As a general strategy I have been trying to assume that premise = truth (for the context of the question) and so asking about another source of mercury would be questioning the truth of the statement "mercury that accumulates in a seabird’s feathers as the feathers grow is derived from fish eaten by the bird," which implies that birds only accumulate mercury from fish they eat. If the premise had been "some mercury..." or even "most mercury..." then I think your question would be useful.
For 12, the question "“What if one of the authors sought to emulate the other’s life?” really has nothing to do with plagiarism. The speaker is only trying to argue that there was no plagiarism in the written texts of Novels X and Y. She does not talk about Author X or Author Y, but only their novels. Your question assumes too much the authors-- that they may have known each other and copied each other's experiences, none of which is mentioned.
For 18, I am not really sure what a "dangling variable" is, but what is jumping out to me is that the speaker doesn't consider whether there are other universally accepted principles that might influence the parents' decision. If the premise was "the moral duty to prevent members of one's family from being harmed trumps all other moral duties" then the argument would be stronger. But bringing in other families is really outside of what is stated in the argument and I am not sure how it would be incorporated.
For 19, you are attacking the premise. The premise states "money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of government intrusion." The assumed subject is the voter and while "can be considered" is much less direct than "is considered," the premise still implies that for the voters, taxes = intrusion.
For 20, the premises are that 1) the historical society (who presumably would like to keep the train station) is not committed to long term economic health, 2) keeping old buildings prevents new development and 3) new development is critical to economic health. It is not explicitly stated that the historical society wishes is opposed to new development but the speaker does characterize them in this way. The loophole I see is that the speaker never actually says that the historical society wishes to keep the train station but only says that they don't care about long term economic health. They are not necessarily a preservation society. This might just be splitting hairs though and I too am confused abut this question.
For 25, I think the loophole is more along the lines of: what if it takes more than just coping with diverse environments to survive prehistoric times? Maybe this is what you mean by the conditional. While you do need to "adapt to survive," which AA could do, you also need to be able to do other things which they presumably were unable to do, judging by their extinction:(
I hope some of this might be helpful. I am very new to this whole test and studying routine but would love to go back and forth with you (or anyone else who stumbles upon this thread) to share thoughts about questions and studying tips.
