A
The consultants use the same criteria to evaluate managers’ efficiency as they do to evaluate their time management skills.
B
Successful time management is more dependent on motivation than on good technique.
C
Most managers at other companies who have attended time management seminars are still unproductive.
D
Most managers who are already efficient do not need to improve their productivity.
E
Most managers who are efficient have never attended a time management seminar.
Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public’s scientific understanding. But these predictions are baseless. Throughout recorded history, dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that programs that emphasize paranormal incidents will not impede the public’s scientific understanding. This is based on the fact that throughout history, story-tellers have told stories involving paranormal elements, but the public’s scientific understanding has steadily advanced during this time.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paranormal stories have impeded (meaning, obstructed or hindered) the public’s understanding of science, even if they haven’t completely stopped advancement of that understanding. Something can still advance while being impeded.
A
It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by another phenomenon.
The author fails to consider that the public’s understanding of science can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by paranormal stories. This is why the author’s premise does not establish that TV shows about paranormal incidents won’t impede understanding.
B
It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected.
The author does not assume that correlation proves cause. The author’s conclusion does not assert cause or rely on an assumption of cause. In fact, the author asserts that one thing (paranormal stories) does not cause another thing (impeding of understanding).
C
It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former does not impede the latter.
The conclusion is that one thing does not impede another thing. Pointing out a failure to consider what could be true “even if [one thing] does not impede [another thing]” does not show why the argument is weak. Any weakness must relate to why one thing can impede another thing.
D
It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not also affect the former.
The author does not overlook the possibility that a causal relationship is also reversed. The author does not, for example, assert that paranormal stories can’t affect public understanding because public understanding has affected paranormal stories.
E
It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former.
The contention is that paranormal TV shows impede scientific understanding. The author believes this is baseless. But the author does not cite to the fact that the impeding of scientific understanding has persisted despite increases in the pervasiveness of paranormal stories.
But this overlooks the possibility that it’s the other way around: maybe being in a state of creativity is what leads to higher theta brainwaves. Or maybe a third factor—say, waking up early in the morning—both triggers a state of profound creativity and increases theta brainwaves. If either of these were true, listening to music could increase theta brainwaves without triggering a state of profound creativity.
A
takes for granted that there is a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity
B
fails to consider that music is not necessary for one to be in a state of profound creativity
C
does not rule out the possibility that listening to music by means other than a tape recording also increases theta waves
D
ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity
E
provides insufficient reasons to believe that people who are not in states of profound creativity have low levels of theta brain waves
The question stem reads: The editorialist's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that… This is a Flaw question.
The editorialist states that a recently passed law limits freedom of speech to silence dissenters. He then describes the claim that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In this claim, "doomed" is a necessary condition indicator. So we can rewrite the claim into lawgic: ignorant of history -> repeat history. The editorialist concludes that "If this (ignorant of history -> repeat history) is true, then those responsible for passing the laws must be ignorant of a great deal of history." In lawgic, the conclusion reads:
(ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
The editorialists note that in the past, silencing dissenters have tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Let's outline the argument::
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Looking at the premises, we can infer that history has been repeated. Dissenters have been silenced in the past, and lawmakers today are trying to silence dissenters now.
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Finally, we can kick up the sufficient condition of the conclusion:
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
P4: ignorant of history -> repeat history
______________________________________________
C: law passers are ignorant of history
Remember, satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition. The editorialist has used the fact that history has been repeated (P4's necessary condition) to conclude that the lawmakers are ignorant of history (P4's sufficient condition). The editorialist is affirming the consequent, a classic logical fallacy. Now that we see the error in the editorialist's reasoning let's move the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument. The purpose of the law does not matter. What matters to the argument is that history is repeating itself.
Answer Choice (B) is irrelevant. If you picked (B), you likely got caught up in irrelevant parts of the stimulus, i.e., "limits freedom of speech" and "tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes." But the editorialist's argument is not about what freedoms need or need not be protected.
Answer Choice (C) is actually taken into account by the argument. The stimulus says, "silencing dissenters has tended to promote… the establishment of authoritarian regimes." The fact that you can find some instances of undermining regimes is compatible with the editorialist's claim. Furthermore, what matters is that a law "silencing dissenters" is a repeat of history. Whether or not the law ends up establishing or undermining an authoritarian regime is arbitrary.
Answer Choice (D) is also irrelevant. Whether the law is good or bad has no effect on the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is an illustration of our prephase. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but it is entirely possible to be aware of history and still repeat it. Maybe these lawmakers intend to establish an authoritarian regime. Maybe not. In either case, (E) is good to go.
A
the law may have other purposes in addition to silencing dissenters
B
certain freedoms might sometimes need to be limited in order to ensure the protection of certain other freedoms
C
some historical accounts report that legal restrictions on freedom of speech have occasionally undermined the establishment of authoritarian regimes
D
many good laws have been passed by people who are largely ignorant of history
E
even those who are not ignorant of history may repeat its patterns
The question stem reads: The editorialist's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that… This is a Flaw question.
The editorialist states that a recently passed law limits freedom of speech to silence dissenters. He then describes the claim that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In this claim, "doomed" is a necessary condition indicator. So we can rewrite the claim into lawgic: ignorant of history -> repeat history. The editorialist concludes that "If this (ignorant of history -> repeat history) is true, then those responsible for passing the laws must be ignorant of a great deal of history." In lawgic, the conclusion reads:
(ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
The editorialists note that in the past, silencing dissenters have tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Let's outline the argument::
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Looking at the premises, we can infer that history has been repeated. Dissenters have been silenced in the past, and lawmakers today are trying to silence dissenters now.
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
______________________________________________
C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history
Finally, we can kick up the sufficient condition of the conclusion:
P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters
P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.
P3: history has been repeated
P4: ignorant of history -> repeat history
______________________________________________
C: law passers are ignorant of history
Remember, satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition. The editorialist has used the fact that history has been repeated (P4's necessary condition) to conclude that the lawmakers are ignorant of history (P4's sufficient condition). The editorialist is affirming the consequent, a classic logical fallacy. Now that we see the error in the editorialist's reasoning let's move the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument. The purpose of the law does not matter. What matters to the argument is that history is repeating itself.
Answer Choice (B) is irrelevant. If you picked (B), you likely got caught up in irrelevant parts of the stimulus, i.e., "limits freedom of speech" and "tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes." But the editorialist's argument is not about what freedoms need or need not be protected.
Answer Choice (C) is actually taken into account by the argument. The stimulus says, "silencing dissenters has tended to promote… the establishment of authoritarian regimes." The fact that you can find some instances of undermining regimes is compatible with the editorialist's claim. Furthermore, what matters is that a law "silencing dissenters" is a repeat of history. Whether or not the law ends up establishing or undermining an authoritarian regime is arbitrary.
Answer Choice (D) is also irrelevant. Whether the law is good or bad has no effect on the argument.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is an illustration of our prephase. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but it is entirely possible to be aware of history and still repeat it. Maybe these lawmakers intend to establish an authoritarian regime. Maybe not. In either case, (E) is good to go.
The question stem reads: The Conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? This is a Sufficient Assumption question.
Love is complicated in the real world, which is no different than love in the LSAT. It's possible to love someone and not be loved back. Unfortunately, love is not a biconditional. My previous relationships confirm that. While reading this stimulus, it is essential to see which "way" the love is going. Are you loving or being loved? The stimulus is short and conditional heavy, so let's break these down as we go. The stimulus starts with "whoever is kind is loved by somebody or another." This translates into the lawgic:
kind -> loved by someone
Next, the stimulus claims that "whoever loves anyone is happy." This translated into the lawgic:
Love anyone -> happy
The argument concludes, "Whoever is kind is happy." Translated:
Kind -> happy
Let's organize this argument into:
P1: Kind -> loved by someone
P2: Love anyone -> happy
______________________________________________
C: Kind -> happy
We can kick up the sufficient condition so we now have:
P3: Kind
P1: Kind -> loved by someone
P2: Love anyone -> happy
______________________________________________
C: Happy
We want to get to "happy," and P2 will get us there if we can satisfy "love anyone." Let's make that our necessary condition: (__) -> love anyone. Now we need to find a sufficient condition that will be satisfied by the argument. Notice how P3 satisfies the sufficient condition of P1, so we can infer that "loved by someone" occurs. Let's make "loved by someone" the sufficient condition of conditional: loved by someone -> love anyone. Now we have a valid argument:
P3: Kind
P1: Kind -> loved by someone
SA: Loved by someone -> love anyone
P2: Love anyone -> happy
______________________________________________
C: Happy
P3 will trigger P1, P1 triggers our SA, and our SA will trigger P2, which brings us to the desired conclusion of "happy." Happy is exactly what we are because we just solved this four-star problem. Let's move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. If you picked (A), you likely misread P1 and thought that being kind meant you loved someone. You can rule out (A) quickly by seeing we are missing the concept of "loved by."
Answer Choice (B) is also out. You can rule out (B) because we are missing the concept of "loved by."
Answer Choice (C) is also out. We want to get to "happy," but (C) has "happy" in sufficient condition; we can rule (C) out.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is the contrapositive of our prephase. (D) translate to:
Loves no one -> loved by no one
We take the contrapositive:
/(loved by no one) -> /(loves no one)
Not being loved by no one means you are loved by someone. Not loving no one means you love someone. So we get our SA: "Loved by someone -> love anyone."
Answer Choice (E) is the most popular wrong answer. If you picked (E), you likely thought that (E) would let you infer "loves everyone." "Loves everyone" would satisfy "loves anyone" and deliver you to "happy." The problem with (E) is that it has "Kind" in the necessary. Remember, satisfying the necessary condition has no effect on the sufficient condition.