LSAT 64 - Section 3 - Question 13

May 13, 2012

9 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 3 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.

Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.

Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.

Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.

The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.

You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."


58 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 3 - Question 15

May 13, 2012

25 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 3 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

1 comment

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 13

May 13, 2012

Astronomers have found new evidence that the number of galaxies in the universe is not 10 billion, as previously believed, but 50 billion. This discovery will have an important effect on theories about how galaxies are formed. But even though astronomers now believe 40 billion more galaxies exist, many astronomers’ estimates of the universe’s total mass remain virtually unchanged.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did discovering so many new galaxies not change astronomers’ estimates of the universe’s total mass?

Objective
A hypothesis resolving this discrepancy must give information about the way astronomers calculate the total mass of the universe. It will imply that some property of the new galaxies kept astronomers from remaking their mass estimates, or that astronomers’ estimates depend little on the number of galaxies.

A
The mass of galaxies is thought to make up only a tiny percentage of the universe’s total mass.
This explains why the astronomers did not revise their mass estimates by much. If a large majority of the universe’s mass is not contained in galaxies, then finding new galaxies would not be cause to update the mass measurement by a significant amount.
B
The overwhelming majority of galaxies are so far from Earth that their mass can be only roughly estimated.
This does not explain why astronomers chose not to update their mass estimates. If the masses of the new galaxies can at least be estimated, their mass should have been added to estimates of the total mass of the universe.
C
The number of galaxies that astronomers believe exist tends to grow as the instruments used to detect galaxies become more sophisticated.
This gives context for the astronomers’ discovery, but does not explain why they opted to keep their current mass estimates. If astronomers routinely discover new galaxies, their estimates of the universe’s mass should also be updated routinely.
D
Theories about how galaxies are formed are rarely affected by estimates of the universe’s total mass.
This is irrelevant information. Astronomers did not update their estimates of the universe’s total mass, so theories about galaxy development would not have been so affected anyway.
E
There is no consensus among astronomers on the proper procedures for estimating the universe’s total mass.
This does not state that some astronomers disregard the number of galaxies when estimating the universe’s total mass. Whatever their methods, their decision not to update their measurements is a mystery.

10 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 14

May 13, 2012

Newspaper subscriber: Arnot’s editorial argues that by making certain fundamental changes in government we would virtually eliminate our most vexing social ills. But clearly this conclusion is false. After all, the argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that Arnot’s conclusion is false. This is based on the fact that the argument Arnot made advocating his conclusion was based on the highly doubtful assumption that the government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the fact Arnot’s argument relied on an assumption that’s likely to be false proves that Arnot’s conclusion is wrong. But Arnot’s conclusion can still be correct, even if Arnot’s assumption is wrong.

A
it repudiates a claim merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it
Arnot’s argument was inadequate in that his premises didn’t prove his conclusion, because he made a dubious assumption. But the fact his argument is inadequate doesn’t justify rejecting his conclusion. The author made this very mistake, however, and rejected Arnot’s conclusion.
B
it treats a change that is required for virtual elimination of society’s most vexing social ills as a change that will guarantee the virtual elimination of those ills
The author’s position is that we cannot eliminate our most vexing social ills by making changes to government. So the author doesn’t treat government changes as enough to guarantee elimination of those social ills.
C
it fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true
The author assumed “false assumption → false conclusion”. This overlooks that even if an ASSUMPTION is false, the conclusion can be true. (C) accuses the argument of assuming “false conclusion → false assumption.” That’s just reversing the argument’s actual assumption.
D
it distorts the opponent’s argument and then attacks this distorted argument
There’s no indication that the author distorted Arnot’s argument. We don’t know what Arnot originally argued or whether the author’s description of that argument is different from what Arnot originally argued.
E
it uses the key term “government” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion
The word “government” means the same thing throughout. We have no reason to think it takes on different meanings in the argument.

Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.

Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.

Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.

Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.

The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.

You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."


60 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 15

May 13, 2012

Columnist: Shortsighted motorists learn the hard way about the wisdom of preventive auto maintenance; such maintenance almost always pays off in the long run. Our usually shortsighted city council should be praised for using similar wisdom when they hired a long-term economic development adviser. In hiring this adviser, the council made an investment that is likely to have a big payoff in several years. Other cities in this region that have devoted resources to economic development planning have earned large returns on such an investment.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we should praise the council for hiring a long-term economic adviser. This is based on the subsidiary conclusion that the decision to hire the adviser is likely to have a big economic benefit in several years. The subsidiary conclusion is based on the fact that other cities in the region that have invested in economic development planning have earned large returns on those investments. In addition, the author supports that conclusion with an analogy to auto maintenance, which almost always is worth the cost.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the other cities that got large returns on economic development are relevantly similar to the council’s city. The author also assumes that auto maintenance is relevantly similar to economic development in its general likelihood of paying off.

A
Even some cars that receive regular preventive maintenance break down, requiring costly repairs.
We still know that auto maintenance “almost always pays off in the long run.” The author already acknowledges that it might not pay off in every case. Pointing out something the author already acknowledges doesn’t weaken.
B
The columnist’s city has a much smaller population and economy than the other cities did when they began devoting resources to economic development planning.
This shows that the cities the author cites to might not be relevantly similar. Cities with a smaller population and economy might get more value from economic development than a city like the council’s. This weakens the support provided by the author’s comparison.
C
Most motorists who fail to perform preventive maintenance on their cars do so for nonfinancial reasons.
The reason that some motorists fail to perform preventive maintenance doesn’t change the fact that auto maintenance “almost always pays off in the long run.” The argument concerns the value of maintenance, not the motivations behind failure to maintain.
D
Qualified economic development advisers generally demand higher salaries than many city councils are willing to spend.
This doesn’t suggest the adviser is unqualified. We have no reason to think the adviser was among those who demand more than many councils are willing to spend or that this city council wasn’t willing to spend to hire someone qualified. (D) also ignores the argument’s reasoning.
E
Cities that have earned large returns due to hiring economic development advisers did not earn any returns at all in the advisers’ first few years of employment.
The author believes the investment in the adviser will pay off in the long run. That acknowledges that there might not be a payoff in the first few years. So, lack of payoff in the first few years is consistent with the author’s position.

28 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 16

May 13, 2012

Editorial: Cell-phone usage on buses and trains is annoying to other passengers. This suggests that recent proposals to allow use of cell phones on airplanes are ill-advised. Cell-phone use would be far more upsetting on airplanes than it is on buses and trains. Airline passengers are usually packed in tightly. And if airline passengers are offended by the cell-phone excesses of their seatmates, they often cannot move to another seat.

Summarize Argument
The editorialist claims that recent proposals allowing cell phones to be used on airplanes is a bad idea. Cell-phone usage on buses and trains annoys other passengers, and airplanes are configured in such a way that would make cell-phone usage even more annoying.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text supports the editorialist’s conclusion that recent proposals to allow cell-phone usage on airplanes are ill-advised. It’s also supported by two other premises, making it a sub-conclusion.

A
It is the main conclusion of the argument.
The author concludes that recent proposals are ill-advised. The referenced text supports this conclusion by showing that airplanes are a more extreme case than trains and buses, where cell-phone usage is already annoying.
B
It is a claim that the argument tries to rebut.
The editorialist doesn’t disagree that cell-phone usage on planes is more annoying than on trains and buses. In fact, he supports the claim with additional premises.
C
It is a premise that indirectly supports the main conclusion of the argument by supporting a premise for that conclusion.
The referenced text directly supports the conclusion, and is itself supported by other premises. Why are the proposals a bad idea? Because cell-phone usage is even more annoying on airplanes than on trains and buses.
D
It is a conclusion for which support is provided and that itself is used in turn to directly support the argument’s main conclusion.
The referenced text supports the claim that recent proposals are ill-advised, and is also supported by two claims. Why are cell phones more annoying on airplanes than buses? Because airplanes are tightly packed, and you can’t change seats mid-flight to avoid the annoyance.
E
It provides background information that plays no role in the reasoning in the argument.
The referenced text supports the argument. It gives a reason why recent proposals are a bad idea—cell-phone usage, while already annoying on buses and trains, is far worse on airplanes.

8 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 1 - Question 22

May 13, 2012

54 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 1 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

29 comments

«‹688689690691692693694695696697698699700701702703704705706707708›»