Question: I completely understand why C is correct, but could someone clarify why my reasoning for B was wrong?
Reading the question, I believed one of the assumptions to be that it was the banning of lead paint that led to the decrease in childhood lead poisoning. I thought that if this is indeed an assumption, then the conclusion that eliminaing lead paint from remaining homes will eradciate lead poisoning, is also based on the same assumption made in the premise. Therefore AC (B) seemed correct, as the argument relies on an assumption (removing lead paint leads to decrease in lead poisoning) that is tantamount to assuming the conclusion (removing lead paint will eradicate lead poisoning) is true. I realize this is wrong but would really appreciate someone explaining why to me:)
A. There is no reason present in the stimulus indicating that we should believe the statistics are unreliable
B. Relies on an assumption, but not one that equally assumes the conclusion is true
C. CORRECT , if this is true, and there ARE other significant sources of lead in the area, then how can the author guarantee that his proposed premise will guarantee the evisceration of childhood lead poisoning in the area?
I really wish you would show all the answers at once. It's hard to determine if I would have chosen the correct answer when you only show the choices one at a time.
@cyzar917 Right next to the comment button and underneath the lesson title is 'show question' - this shows the entire question and answer choices that's covered in the lesson!
Could you also say that the question stimulus is using the "context" sentence as reasoning by analogy? Like because this happened in this situation, it can happen in another? Or are there too many other lines of reasoning for that to be a factor?
does anyone have any examples of questions where the correct answer choice actually would be "relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true"?
Felt like cheating when answering this question because one of my profs works for the CDC, and we've talked about lead poisoning, and how it is caused by more than just lead paint.
This is literally me guessing so I could be way off base, but it feels like "takes for granted" is more about fulfilling a sufficient condition, and "fails to consider" is more about failing a necessary condition.
Premise 1: I have a crush on a girl in my class
Premise 2: I will ask her out
(what I am taking for granted, a sufficient condition for success: she will say yes)
Conclusion: therefore, I will be going out on a date with her.
Answer: The argument takes for granted that she will say yes
Premise 1: I have a crush on a girl in my class
Premise 2: I will ask her out
(what I am failing to consider, and will fail the necessary condition: she will say no)
Conclusion: therefore, I will be going out on a date with her.
Answer: The argument fails to consider that she will say no
I wrote down the assumption I located (that the lead paint in the only cause of childhood lead poisoning in the area), but I confused tantamount with paramount. I now see that tantamount means equivalent, so C would've obviously been the answer. How to improve on LSAT vocab?
I think for Flaw-Descriptive Weakening questions where the stem is worded as "the argument is flawed in that it..." it can be approached in the same way that weaken questions are. So, the answer choice would be specific and match the stimulus, like C does here. (if you read the text in the first lesson I think that is where the breakdown about the rare Flaw question that is equivalent to Weaken)
For regular Flaw questions the answers will be more general
I am not sure if this applies to all flaw-descriptive weakening questions, but for the last two we did, I used causal logic to pick the correct answer. Remember hypotheses, causation vs correlation, alternative causes, multiple causes, etc.
@soohae.c I was also confused, because when we did weakening questions, we talked about alternative hypotheses as weaknesses. But The way I understand it here:
FLAWS are about a formal error in the structure of the argument itself. Here, the error is that the causal logic structure of (Eliminate lead paint --c--> eradicate child lead poisoning) would fail if there are other sources of lead that also have a causal relationship. Ie, there are multiple --c--> arrows pointing to child lead poisoning, and scrubbing out one cause does not mean the others aren't still there.
WEAKNESS is about the way that an argument is undermined. In E, we are still using the same causal logic given in the stimulus (Eliminate lead paint --c--> eradicate child lead poisoning), but pointing out some assumptions that are needed to fulfill the sufficient assumption to make that given causal relationship run through.
I also don't know if this distinction applies to all flaw questions, but that is how I understand this one!
#help#feedback It would be helpful if JY described how the following describes circular reasoning: "relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true." I am someone that likes to know the theory and reasoning, the WHY. I do not like to just memorize things (for example, memorize that that describes circular reasoning). But rather, knowing WHY it describes circular reasoning helps me to better understand and remember. Thank you!
I realize this is an old comment but for anyone struggling with this, I'd rewatch the video 8:27-9:05. He explains that B is saying the argument is just a restatement of the conclusion. That IS circular reasoning. "Tantamount" means basically equivalent. Sub out the word "tantamount" for "equivalent" and hopefully you can see how it's an example of circular reasoning aka begging the question.
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.
39 comments
Question: I completely understand why C is correct, but could someone clarify why my reasoning for B was wrong?
Reading the question, I believed one of the assumptions to be that it was the banning of lead paint that led to the decrease in childhood lead poisoning. I thought that if this is indeed an assumption, then the conclusion that eliminaing lead paint from remaining homes will eradciate lead poisoning, is also based on the same assumption made in the premise. Therefore AC (B) seemed correct, as the argument relies on an assumption (removing lead paint leads to decrease in lead poisoning) that is tantamount to assuming the conclusion (removing lead paint will eradicate lead poisoning) is true. I realize this is wrong but would really appreciate someone explaining why to me:)
A. There is no reason present in the stimulus indicating that we should believe the statistics are unreliable
B. Relies on an assumption, but not one that equally assumes the conclusion is true
C. CORRECT , if this is true, and there ARE other significant sources of lead in the area, then how can the author guarantee that his proposed premise will guarantee the evisceration of childhood lead poisoning in the area?
D. Economics are an irrelevant factor here
E. Author doesn’t assume this.
I really wish you would show all the answers at once. It's hard to determine if I would have chosen the correct answer when you only show the choices one at a time.
@cyzar917 Right next to the comment button and underneath the lesson title is 'show question' - this shows the entire question and answer choices that's covered in the lesson!
@kapinto Thank you very much for this, I didn't see that. Very helpful!
Could you also say that the question stimulus is using the "context" sentence as reasoning by analogy? Like because this happened in this situation, it can happen in another? Or are there too many other lines of reasoning for that to be a factor?
does anyone have any examples of questions where the correct answer choice actually would be "relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true"?
So basically not all assumptions are bad?
WHAT DOES TANTAMOUNT MEAN
lol ikr
Felt like cheating when answering this question because one of my profs works for the CDC, and we've talked about lead poisoning, and how it is caused by more than just lead paint.
does takes for granted mean assume??
yes! I saw him confirm this in a similar question in an earlier lesson
@kayteeem it means "wrongly assumes" in flaw question type context or "assumes without justification (evidence/support/premise)"
still confused about it takes for granted vs. it fails to consider. I know that each of them mean but somehow I still get that wrong. #help
This is literally me guessing so I could be way off base, but it feels like "takes for granted" is more about fulfilling a sufficient condition, and "fails to consider" is more about failing a necessary condition.
Premise 1: I have a crush on a girl in my class
Premise 2: I will ask her out
(what I am taking for granted, a sufficient condition for success: she will say yes)
Conclusion: therefore, I will be going out on a date with her.
Answer: The argument takes for granted that she will say yes
Premise 1: I have a crush on a girl in my class
Premise 2: I will ask her out
(what I am failing to consider, and will fail the necessary condition: she will say no)
Conclusion: therefore, I will be going out on a date with her.
Answer: The argument fails to consider that she will say no
Got it right but tantamount like what
and when does it take it for granted? Ex.
I wrote down the assumption I located (that the lead paint in the only cause of childhood lead poisoning in the area), but I confused tantamount with paramount. I now see that tantamount means equivalent, so C would've obviously been the answer. How to improve on LSAT vocab?
@emailradhey417 I bought a little notebook for LSAT where I keep a dictionary of the words I don't understand and then define them with examples :)
@AminaJensen I got a flashcards app and did this.
through four lessons I'm still INVICTO! :)
I thought flawed answers were supposed to be general?? IDK!
I think for Flaw-Descriptive Weakening questions where the stem is worded as "the argument is flawed in that it..." it can be approached in the same way that weaken questions are. So, the answer choice would be specific and match the stimulus, like C does here. (if you read the text in the first lesson I think that is where the breakdown about the rare Flaw question that is equivalent to Weaken)
For regular Flaw questions the answers will be more general
entirely depends on the question stem. USUALLY they're general, but specific Flaw questions (usually relating to causal reasoning) can be specific
so happy I was able to think of the answer just by reading the stimulus, yay for progress!
flaws were one of my worst sections, but now the right vs wrong answers are slowly starting to click. well we will see if I get humbled later
anyone else today years old finding out what tantamount means
I had to google it right away LOL
lol me too
Aaaaaaa..... I'm conflating assumptions with flaws... are there any lessons to HELP me with this? #feedback
I am not sure if this applies to all flaw-descriptive weakening questions, but for the last two we did, I used causal logic to pick the correct answer. Remember hypotheses, causation vs correlation, alternative causes, multiple causes, etc.
@soohae.c I was also confused, because when we did weakening questions, we talked about alternative hypotheses as weaknesses. But The way I understand it here:
FLAWS are about a formal error in the structure of the argument itself. Here, the error is that the causal logic structure of (Eliminate lead paint --c--> eradicate child lead poisoning) would fail if there are other sources of lead that also have a causal relationship. Ie, there are multiple --c--> arrows pointing to child lead poisoning, and scrubbing out one cause does not mean the others aren't still there.
WEAKNESS is about the way that an argument is undermined. In E, we are still using the same causal logic given in the stimulus (Eliminate lead paint --c--> eradicate child lead poisoning), but pointing out some assumptions that are needed to fulfill the sufficient assumption to make that given causal relationship run through.
I also don't know if this distinction applies to all flaw questions, but that is how I understand this one!
great lesson
#help#feedback It would be helpful if JY described how the following describes circular reasoning: "relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true." I am someone that likes to know the theory and reasoning, the WHY. I do not like to just memorize things (for example, memorize that that describes circular reasoning). But rather, knowing WHY it describes circular reasoning helps me to better understand and remember. Thank you!
I realize this is an old comment but for anyone struggling with this, I'd rewatch the video 8:27-9:05. He explains that B is saying the argument is just a restatement of the conclusion. That IS circular reasoning. "Tantamount" means basically equivalent. Sub out the word "tantamount" for "equivalent" and hopefully you can see how it's an example of circular reasoning aka begging the question.
Really like rewording how the right answer choice could look! #feedback
For answer choice B), couldn't the assumption be that the lead paint in those homes is the cause of all the childhood lead poisoning? #help
old question but thats what I thought too