PT 57, Section 3 #20 and #22 Forum

[chooch]

For #20, do you diagram the conditional reasoning? How would you approach this problem?

and for #22, can anyone explain answer b more simply? I'm still having trouble understanding. Thanks!

[LSAT All Star]

For #20, do you diagram the conditional reasoning? How would you approach this problem?

This is precisely how I do No. 20 on test day:

In order to find the response option with the most similar pattern of reasoning, first, I have to be clear on the pattern of reasoning contained in the initial argument.

All A (moral actions) are B (the keeping of agreements)
All B are not more than C (acts securing mutual benefits)
All B are not A
Therefore,
Some C are not A

Notice, I am not sure exactly how LSAC wants me to interpret “not more than” in syllogism terms, so I didn’t do it (although it looks like All B are C is going to suffice considering the logic pattern). I left it as stated and I’ll make that determination once I see the response options. But, I do have a clear view of the pattern. On to the response options.

Choice A? All A (calculators) are B (computers). All B are C (auto reasoning devices). All C are Not A. [Already different]. Therefore, Some C are Not B. Strike it.

Choice B? All A (exercise) is B (beneficial). All B are C (promote health). All B are Not A. Therefore, Some A are Not C. Close but no cigar (the conclusion is backward). Strike it.

Choice C? All A (metaphors) are B (comparisons). Not All B are C (surprising). [Already pretty different]. All A are C. Therefore, Some B are Not A. This does not look like it. Is it some twisted version of it? I am not going to sit and stare and try to figure that out now. First I will look for a good match in the two remaining response options. If I do not find one, I’ll come back and stare at this.

Choice D? All A (architecture) is B (design). All B is C (art). All B is Not A. Therefore, Some C is Not B. Close again, but not quite it. Strike it.

Choice E? All A (books) are B (texts). All B are C (documents). All B are Not A. Therefore, Some C are Not A. It took a while but I found a perfect match. Mark it. Good thing I did not waste a lot of time staring at Choice C.

[LSAT All Star]

For #22, can anyone explain answer b more simply? I'm still having trouble understanding. Thanks!

It is hard to understand the ramifications of Choice B in a vacuum. But, if you handle the question in the correct order - understanding the problem with the argument before you head to the response options - then Choice B should make perfect sense.

There is a gap in the argument. The first premise is about the views of the candidates. The second premise (which is used to conclude the first premise is false) is about the views of the political parties. Are these synonymous? No. Does that make the argument vulnerable to criticism? Yes. How do we weaken this type argument? One way is simply to expose the gap. Choice B does exactly that. It tells us those two terms are not synonymous.

[chooch]

LSAT All Star, you explanations are great, thanks for your help!

[ku1185]

For #22, can anyone explain answer b more simply? I'm still having trouble understanding. Thanks!

It is hard to understand the ramifications of Choice B in a vacuum. But, if you handle the question in the correct order - understanding the problem with the argument before you head to the response options - then Choice B should make perfect sense.

There is a gap in the argument. The first premise is about the views of the candidates. The second premise (which is used to conclude the first premise is false) is about the views of the political parties. Are these synonymous? No. Does that make the argument vulnerable to criticism? Yes. How do we weaken this type argument? One way is simply to expose the gap. Choice B does exactly that. It tells us those two terms are not synonymous.

I'm still having trouble understanding this precisely. I only got this question correct by POE, but I would like to make sense of this.
Basically, would I be right in thinking that B is correct because B (in very watered down terms) states that the candidate's views might be different from the political parties' views to which the wealthy people subscribe?

As I understand it, B is saying that candidates may have more varied views than that of a political party. In order to gain support of the wealthy constituents of a party, the candidate would need to "compromise their views" by taking less varied views?

[jpSartre]

For #22, can anyone explain answer b more simply? I'm still having trouble understanding. Thanks!

It is hard to understand the ramifications of Choice B in a vacuum. But, if you handle the question in the correct order - understanding the problem with the argument before you head to the response options - then Choice B should make perfect sense.

There is a gap in the argument. The first premise is about the views of the candidates. The second premise (which is used to conclude the first premise is false) is about the views of the political parties. Are these synonymous? No. Does that make the argument vulnerable to criticism? Yes. How do we weaken this type argument? One way is simply to expose the gap. Choice B does exactly that. It tells us those two terms are not synonymous.

I'm still having trouble understanding this precisely. I only got this question correct by POE, but I would like to make sense of this.
Basically, would I be right in thinking that B is correct because B (in very watered down terms) states that the candidate's views might be different from the political parties' views to which the wealthy people subscribe?

As I understand it, B is saying that candidates may have more varied views than that of a political party. In order to gain support of the wealthy constituents of a party, the candidate would need to "compromise their views" by taking less varied views?

Hoping to revive this. My question is the same as ku's

[nycparalegal]

Let me give it a shot at #22.

Basically this stimulus begins with a conditional statement that to win democratic elections that are not fully subsidized by the government (so this is a very specfic criteria), candidates have to be supported by wealthy patrons.

The argument is that because the wealthy are in all of the various parties in equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population, the candidates will not have to compromise their views to win their support.

But think about this: what if there is only three parties in the country one is far right, one is far left and one is center-right. And you are a center-left candidate.

Just because there are many parties, that doesn't mean that the candidates NEVER have to compromise their own views to win support of the wealthy in those parties.