PT6.S2.Q05 - the museum's night security guard

t.vu1986t.vu1986 Alum Member
edited March 2016 in Logical Reasoning 14 karma
The question is as follows:

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions on the discussion forums! Removed the question.

I chose (A), but it was incorrect because the actual correct answer is (B). I understand the reasoning behind why answer choice (B) is correct. However, I am concerned as to the actual fact that we are taught to consider the stimulus truth and to not question the premise, rather we ought to question the conclusions.

As this was an older LSAT - ought test takers still concern themselves with these types of questions (where the premise/speaker of said premise may be questionable)?

Hope to receive word from someone soon.

Comments

  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    27829 karma
    Well, this is a parallel flaw question, so they are already telling you that the relationship between the premises and conclusion is invalid. You don’t question either element independently of the other. Rather, you’re looking for their relationship. With a parallel flaw question, you are specifically trying to define exactly why the premises fail to support the conclusion. Then in your answer choices, you find the argument that fails for the same reason.

    And test takers ought to concern themselves with all types of questions. There are no questionable questions, they have each been vetted exhaustively.
  • t.vu1986t.vu1986 Alum Member
    14 karma
    @"Can’t Get Right" said:
    You don’t question either element independently of the other.
    Thanks for the tips. I wasn't sure if LSAC would include these older types of parallel flaw questions in the newer tests. I was just under the impression, one was supposed to assume the speaker doesn't have ulterior motives, etc... Perhaps you could elaborate on this too! Thanks again.
  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    27829 karma
    Yeah, no problem. The point at issue here isn’t necessarily the guard’s motive. That’s a very natural and not unlikely scenario. Like, who is this guy even, did we even do a background check on him? But maybe he’s just incompetent. Maybe he doesn’t understand the definition of “ground level,” right? He thinks “ground level” means the roof. The guard adds a level of removal from our premise that complicates our argument. It’s actually very similar to the problem of knowledge. So if we say:

    Susan knows that if X then Y
    X
    Therefore, Susan knows that Y.

    See the problem there? We have no idea if Susan knows about Y because how we have no clue if she knows about our X. It adds an extra level that must be accommodated. We’d have to say:

    Susan knows that if X then Y
    Susan knows that X
    Therefore, Susan knows that Y.

    Yeah, now we’re good. Same thing with the guard. If we either add or subtract that “the guard maintains that,” to/from every element of the argument then we get a lot stronger.

    So, same thing with Answer choice B.
Sign In or Register to comment.