Yay! The other answers were attractive but this one was the only one that was relevant to the actual reason privitization would work for one and not the other. I think I'm getting it! :)
I chose B on this one because I thought that since it was attacking the premise, then the argument overall would be cooked. However, while it does attack the premise, it does not attack the conclusion. Sure, there might be harm associated with the economic side of it, but that does not say ANYTHING about how it might benefit consumers. Next time it's imperative to distinguish if an answer choice is actually pertinent to the question or if it is just a red herring.
It really does annoy me when I get it wrong the first time and then on the BR I get it correct, like come one I should of gotten this right on the first try.,
Used this point from another commenter on a different question: "Being able to pinpoint the assumption in the argument makes it easier to find the correct answer". Figuring out the assumption that increased competition will ultimately benefit consumers led me to the correct answer after blind review
The explanation as to why E is the answer does not make sense. Much less competitors still means there could be a number of competitors that leads to the positive impact for the consumer in regard to privatization. I’m not sure how that weakens the argument at all. While I understand that B does not directly address the positive impact on the consumer, it still is the only answer that provides any reason why the privatization would potentially have a negative impact on the consumer. Even if just 2 consumers become unemployed as a result, that could easily be seen as a negative. E just tells me that the positive impact may not be as great as the telecommunications but does not give me any indication that there would be no positive impact on the consumer.
@KyleGoetz Here's what helped me with this question: The author argues that the benefit in the telecommunications industry has come because of the competition privatization allowed. Answer Choice E attacks that specific reasoning. It's saying, "Actually, author, your reasoning is faulty because you think the benefits of privatizing national parks will come because of competition - like they did when the telecommunications industry was privatized. But national parks don't work like the telecommunications industry does."
Answer Choice B is tricky because it talks about things that we know are bad. Your reasoning for choosing Answer Choice B is showing that you'd be a better political candidate than the politician in the stimulus, but Answer Choice B is not talking about the argument of the actual author, so it's wrong.
@KyleGoetz Choice B does not say there is ANY negative consequence for the consumer. The entirety of the negative consequences would be for the employees. You could argue that it is likely that some of the employees are also consumers, but the premises and the answer choice say nothing about that. However, choice E says that there would be "much less" competition. And the premises only set up the analogy of privatization as depending on competition. So while it may not defeat the argument (because, yes, there could still be enough competition), it does weaken it the most out of the five choices.
I chose E over D because I thought that for D it even stating that it benefits consumers at all is in a way kind of strengthening the argument rather than weakening. Had the stimulus mentioned metrics specifically D may have been correct, but since that's not mentioned in the stimulus, I was able to rule it out entirely.
I kept getting these non-casual WSE questions wrong. I reviewed the lesson on non-casual logic and got this one correct. I was missing the fundamentals. Analogy and cost benefit. Now I know what to focus on to weaken or strengthen arguments using non-casual logic. Evaluate still tricky.
Almost fell for D but it talked more about consumers and the process. Surprised I got this one so fast!
Side note: America's national parks are one of the most beautiful things the country has to offer. I wouldn't want to privatize the Grand Canyon or Glacier National Park, keeping land like that accessible to all is super important!!
Is anyone else worried about knowing the definition/ meaning of words used?? (expedient in this case)
I have to google definitions at least 5 times every time i do a practice test. Not sure how to get around this weakness as each LSAT is obviously going to have different verbiage
my reasoning may not be practical or even correct, but the reason I immediately eliminated D was because I found it to strengthen the argument. far less people visit national parks than use telephones and the benefits between them aren't really comparable either, this is definitely me pulling in outside knowledge but in my head I just thought "well duh this makes perfect sense"
was riding a confident correct answer streak before this one humbled me
I think the major difference between D and E is that: D says the result of privatizing would have a smaller impact, but an impact nonetheless; E likewise says the analogy won't 100% carry over, but that the difference will impact the process, not necessarily the result. While it doesn't outright show how the analogy isn't applicable, it does cast doubt on the conclusion.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
126 comments
Asking the pros - is there ever a time where a stimulus uses reasoning by analogy and the correct answer to weaken it ISN'T attacking the analogy?
Okay..... I'm giving myself a pat on the back because I GOT IT RIGHT !!!!!!!!
Was hunting for the answer choice that attacked the analogy directly. Helped me find the answer very quickly.
Yay! The other answers were attractive but this one was the only one that was relevant to the actual reason privitization would work for one and not the other. I think I'm getting it! :)
I had to be very careful with this one and not assume too much on this one cause I LOVE the national parks! But guess who got it right!!!
YAYAYA I got this one right :)
You can call me a trout, because I always fall for that bait
I chose B on this one because I thought that since it was attacking the premise, then the argument overall would be cooked. However, while it does attack the premise, it does not attack the conclusion. Sure, there might be harm associated with the economic side of it, but that does not say ANYTHING about how it might benefit consumers. Next time it's imperative to distinguish if an answer choice is actually pertinent to the question or if it is just a red herring.
It really does annoy me when I get it wrong the first time and then on the BR I get it correct, like come one I should of gotten this right on the first try.,
Bang first try!!!
Used this point from another commenter on a different question: "Being able to pinpoint the assumption in the argument makes it easier to find the correct answer". Figuring out the assumption that increased competition will ultimately benefit consumers led me to the correct answer after blind review
The explanation as to why E is the answer does not make sense. Much less competitors still means there could be a number of competitors that leads to the positive impact for the consumer in regard to privatization. I’m not sure how that weakens the argument at all. While I understand that B does not directly address the positive impact on the consumer, it still is the only answer that provides any reason why the privatization would potentially have a negative impact on the consumer. Even if just 2 consumers become unemployed as a result, that could easily be seen as a negative. E just tells me that the positive impact may not be as great as the telecommunications but does not give me any indication that there would be no positive impact on the consumer.
@KyleGoetz Here's what helped me with this question: The author argues that the benefit in the telecommunications industry has come because of the competition privatization allowed. Answer Choice E attacks that specific reasoning. It's saying, "Actually, author, your reasoning is faulty because you think the benefits of privatizing national parks will come because of competition - like they did when the telecommunications industry was privatized. But national parks don't work like the telecommunications industry does."
Answer Choice B is tricky because it talks about things that we know are bad. Your reasoning for choosing Answer Choice B is showing that you'd be a better political candidate than the politician in the stimulus, but Answer Choice B is not talking about the argument of the actual author, so it's wrong.
@KyleGoetz Choice B does not say there is ANY negative consequence for the consumer. The entirety of the negative consequences would be for the employees. You could argue that it is likely that some of the employees are also consumers, but the premises and the answer choice say nothing about that. However, choice E says that there would be "much less" competition. And the premises only set up the analogy of privatization as depending on competition. So while it may not defeat the argument (because, yes, there could still be enough competition), it does weaken it the most out of the five choices.
I chose E over D because I thought that for D it even stating that it benefits consumers at all is in a way kind of strengthening the argument rather than weakening. Had the stimulus mentioned metrics specifically D may have been correct, but since that's not mentioned in the stimulus, I was able to rule it out entirely.
I have somehow gotten much worse at these questions over time... Is my brain frying?
@cwferrari same here
D almost fucking got me on this one. Good try, LSAT!
I kept getting these non-casual WSE questions wrong. I reviewed the lesson on non-casual logic and got this one correct. I was missing the fundamentals. Analogy and cost benefit. Now I know what to focus on to weaken or strengthen arguments using non-casual logic. Evaluate still tricky.
I went with D because I got hung up on "E" mentioning "companies", thinking that National Parks are not companies, so I chose wrong.
Almost fell for D but it talked more about consumers and the process. Surprised I got this one so fast!
Side note: America's national parks are one of the most beautiful things the country has to offer. I wouldn't want to privatize the Grand Canyon or Glacier National Park, keeping land like that accessible to all is super important!!
"Weaken" does NOT mean "must be false."
s
tag yourself, i am the rogue s at the very bottom of this page
I have to remember that the answer choices are true. I kept reading (E) and saying "Okay but how do you KNOW it'll cause less competition?"
Doesn't matter, it's just true.
Is anyone else worried about knowing the definition/ meaning of words used?? (expedient in this case)
I have to google definitions at least 5 times every time i do a practice test. Not sure how to get around this weakness as each LSAT is obviously going to have different verbiage
@ChloeCarmichael I think the study guide early on mentions the practice of "translating" when you don't understand a word or concept.
In this case though it seems more helpful to know the form of the correct answer choice, so that you can eliminate A as soon as you see it.
my reasoning may not be practical or even correct, but the reason I immediately eliminated D was because I found it to strengthen the argument. far less people visit national parks than use telephones and the benefits between them aren't really comparable either, this is definitely me pulling in outside knowledge but in my head I just thought "well duh this makes perfect sense"
was riding a confident correct answer streak before this one humbled me
I think the major difference between D and E is that: D says the result of privatizing would have a smaller impact, but an impact nonetheless; E likewise says the analogy won't 100% carry over, but that the difference will impact the process, not necessarily the result. While it doesn't outright show how the analogy isn't applicable, it does cast doubt on the conclusion.