Subscription pricing
I know (A) is correct since it points out there may be no relation between jury decision and testimony. Yet, I'm still confused about (B). Is it descriptively wrong since the stimulus only says one fact instead of two facts?
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/
Thanks in advance!!
0
3 comments
Thanks!! @ga4842993 @ga4842993
@ga4842993 thank you for your question! I think there are three things to glean from (B) in review.
1.It is wrong because it is descriptively inaccurate. The "ought" is really the problem here. Typically, we use the word "ought" prescriptively. You "ought" to learn the reoccurring inferences for in and out games. That is not what happened in this particular flaw. This flaw moves from the idea that someone believes something, to the idea that they must have acted in accordance of that belief in a specific context. That is a flaw because belief is different from actions. I am a believing Christian, but that doesn't mean in practice I want to ban the consumption of alcohol by others. That belief in and of itself doesn't even commit me to advocating such a route through means of public policy. On the basis of the belief I hold in Christianity, we can only draw the conclusion that I hold those beliefs. We couldn't even draw the conclusion that I myself act in total accordance with that belief!
2.What could we do to amend (B) to make it more accurately describe the flaw in the stimulus? This is a great exercise, for what amending we do points out the problems we have with the answer choice. We could make (B) say "It conflates a belief one holds with how someone acted in a certain context and then draws an inference about that particular context." It confuses the belief Togawa held about P's guilt with the idea that Tagawa gave testimony (acted) to the effect and that the jury must not have believed that.
3. Finally, as it stands, what would be a flaw that (B) is describing? How about the following:
Premise 1: Many people believe Pete Rose deserves to be in the baseball hall of fame because of his hit record, it is an impressive record that no one will ever break. Conclusion: Therefore Pete Rose ought to be in the hall of fame. The conclusion just does not follow from my belief. *For those of you who don't know: Pete Rose was famously deemed "ineligible" for the Hall of Fame due to gambling on games he played in and managed. He holds the all time hit record and for my money, I don't think anyone will ever beat that record, yet the "ought" question is separate from my belief in the greatness of his hit record.
I hope this helps illuminate my views on (B)
-David
I think the issue with (B) is that while the argument does confuse facts about what certain people believe (Tagowa), it mentions nothing about what "ought to be the case."
That portion of the answer choice is NOT descriptively accurate.
Does that make sense?
Anyone else care to jump in?