Lol, the example for D in the text is funny but not funny because it's so realistic and true to how some people actually talk. Getting people riled up or scared is so effective in real life. Funny to think how often bad arguments hide under the guise of emotional manipulation
For anyone not understanding still why A is incorrect, let me rewrite the argument in a way where A would be correct. Answer Choice A looks like this: "asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct."
"I recommend that the abandoned shoe store factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. The other council members have not provided any evidence that the show factory would not be the best site. Thus, the shoe factory would be the best site.”
AC A is only compatible in pointing out the flaw in arguments like this above, and they are not descriptively accurate in describing the flaw in the original stimulus.
So, am I to understand that evidence for one claim does not constitute evidence against a conflicting claim if only one can be correct, and that they can only be considered independently?
Example to illustrate my confusion: person A thinks it is night, person B thinks it is day. It can only ever be one time, so if the reality is that it is day, evidence that suggests it is day, would (to me, somewhat instinctively) feel like reasonable evidence against person A's contention.
Would it be wrong to say "person A is wrong bc person B is correct?" Or should I think of it as "person B is correct because it is verifiably day. And therefore person B is incorrect because it is verifiably not night."
I found whats helped me a lot is the idea of "lassoing" down the answers to the argument. Lasso the conclusion and premise in the argument to the answers you're debating. This has been my weakest section and lassoing has really helped me get many questions correct.
The argument makes a comparative claim that the shoe factory is a better location than the courthouse. By providing evidence for the courthouse being the better location, doesn't this evidence work against the shoe factory being better? The stimulus says there is no evidence the courthouse is better, in other words, there is no evidence against the shoe factory being the better location. Thus, (A) asserting lack of evidence against the shoe factory is proof the shoe factory is the better location. I narrowed down to (A) and (B) and unlike other LSAT questions, I cannot determine a meaningful difference following JY's explanation. I agree (B) is correct but I disagree (A) is wrong.
there may be many other good arguments for why we should order ice cream
the text is missing the word "order" in this sentence
Can we fix this? Yes. Edited (A) asserting that a lack of evidence in favor of a view is proof that an opposing view is correct. The author does assert that there is a lack of evidence in favor of the view (the courthouse) and the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is correct.
Is this the same type of argument flaw as what is known as "unproven vs. proven false"?
If it is, I think using that term is much more intuitive for seeing why it is a bad argument.
Just because the opposing argument that the courthouse would be a better location is unproven by the lack of evidence does NOT mean that it is proven false.
There could be a very strong argument that exists that simply has not been brought up yet in favor of the courthouse.
#help Because the other councilors' position is a comparative claim - that the courthouse would be better than the shoe factory - couldn't their evidence be considered both evidence for the courthouse and evidence against the shoe factory? In which case wouldn't A also work?
#feedback I think it would be really helpful to see all the answer for each question while it is being explained so that we can try to solve it ourselves before being shown the correct answer.
It would be helpful if these lessons could be labelled according to flaw. For example, "Lesson 11 Question Name, Straw Man Flaw" or "Lesson 9, Question name, Appeal to Authority."
This way, if students do not understand one type of flaw, they can easily reference where the lesson is in the CC for review versus having to search for it later on.
soooo they are critiquing the argument in favour of choice B (courthouse) instead of critiquing B itself by showing us why it sucks or why choice A (factory) is better. This matters because the conclusion is about which choice is better and as the argument currently stands, we genuinely don't know -- again, because we don't know the pros/cons of choice A and B. all we know is that there was some argument(s) for B, it sucked, so A is better (which is flawed reasoning)
#feedback I believe the written explanation for (A) may have some issues. After pointing out that the answer choice used "against" instead of "in favor of," it fails to switch back to the original wording for the next part. "It’s true that there is a lack of evidence in favor of that view. But that’s not something the author asserted." Maybe this explanation was intentional, but remember, this is the modified answer choice. There is no follow-up explanation for why the actual choice is incorrect with the original wording (and using the shoe factory as the subject).
Additionally, I think there is a typo in the final sentence of (A)'s explanation:
"...the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is incorrect" should conclude with "...is correct."
Wouldn't this also be the flaw where the author takes the absence of evidence to support their own argument? (I.e., Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean the argument is false etc). I believe this was an almost-flaw we saw in the 'Support for Tax Reduction' and was wondering if it could be applied here since that's what I first thought of upon reading the stimulus. (B) kind of gets at this idea too #help
14
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
36 comments
Jeez Mr. JP is also a talented illustrator! lawyers are multi/super talented.
Disregarded B because I thought "not adequately defending their view" was different from not providing evidence.
bro yaps too much in these videos
Lol, the example for D in the text is funny but not funny because it's so realistic and true to how some people actually talk. Getting people riled up or scared is so effective in real life. Funny to think how often bad arguments hide under the guise of emotional manipulation
councillor acting liking he got evidence too
Answer Choice (A) asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct.
Descriptively inaccurate.
A lack of evidence for the courthouse is not the same as a lack of evidence against the shoe factory.
The argument focuses on a lack of evidence for the courthouse, not on a lack of evidence against the shoe factory.
For anyone not understanding still why A is incorrect, let me rewrite the argument in a way where A would be correct. Answer Choice A looks like this: "asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct."
"I recommend that the abandoned shoe store factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. The other council members have not provided any evidence that the show factory would not be the best site. Thus, the shoe factory would be the best site.”
AC A is only compatible in pointing out the flaw in arguments like this above, and they are not descriptively accurate in describing the flaw in the original stimulus.
So, am I to understand that evidence for one claim does not constitute evidence against a conflicting claim if only one can be correct, and that they can only be considered independently?
Example to illustrate my confusion: person A thinks it is night, person B thinks it is day. It can only ever be one time, so if the reality is that it is day, evidence that suggests it is day, would (to me, somewhat instinctively) feel like reasonable evidence against person A's contention.
Would it be wrong to say "person A is wrong bc person B is correct?" Or should I think of it as "person B is correct because it is verifiably day. And therefore person B is incorrect because it is verifiably not night."
I found whats helped me a lot is the idea of "lassoing" down the answers to the argument. Lasso the conclusion and premise in the argument to the answers you're debating. This has been my weakest section and lassoing has really helped me get many questions correct.
The argument makes a comparative claim that the shoe factory is a better location than the courthouse. By providing evidence for the courthouse being the better location, doesn't this evidence work against the shoe factory being better? The stimulus says there is no evidence the courthouse is better, in other words, there is no evidence against the shoe factory being the better location. Thus, (A) asserting lack of evidence against the shoe factory is proof the shoe factory is the better location. I narrowed down to (A) and (B) and unlike other LSAT questions, I cannot determine a meaningful difference following JY's explanation. I agree (B) is correct but I disagree (A) is wrong.
there may be many other good arguments for why we should order ice cream
the text is missing the word "order" in this sentence
Can we fix this? Yes. Edited (A) asserting that a lack of evidence in favor of a view is proof that an opposing view is correct. The author does assert that there is a lack of evidence in favor of the view (the courthouse) and the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is correct.
incorrect should be fixed to correct
#feedback
Is this the same type of argument flaw as what is known as "unproven vs. proven false"?
If it is, I think using that term is much more intuitive for seeing why it is a bad argument.
Just because the opposing argument that the courthouse would be a better location is unproven by the lack of evidence does NOT mean that it is proven false.
There could be a very strong argument that exists that simply has not been brought up yet in favor of the courthouse.
#help Because the other councilors' position is a comparative claim - that the courthouse would be better than the shoe factory - couldn't their evidence be considered both evidence for the courthouse and evidence against the shoe factory? In which case wouldn't A also work?
#feedback I think it would be really helpful to see all the answer for each question while it is being explained so that we can try to solve it ourselves before being shown the correct answer.
I could only think of Jumanji (1995).
#feedback
It would be helpful if these lessons could be labelled according to flaw. For example, "Lesson 11 Question Name, Straw Man Flaw" or "Lesson 9, Question name, Appeal to Authority."
This way, if students do not understand one type of flaw, they can easily reference where the lesson is in the CC for review versus having to search for it later on.
this council is doomed fsho
soooo they are critiquing the argument in favour of choice B (courthouse) instead of critiquing B itself by showing us why it sucks or why choice A (factory) is better. This matters because the conclusion is about which choice is better and as the argument currently stands, we genuinely don't know -- again, because we don't know the pros/cons of choice A and B. all we know is that there was some argument(s) for B, it sucked, so A is better (which is flawed reasoning)
#feedback I believe the written explanation for (A) may have some issues. After pointing out that the answer choice used "against" instead of "in favor of," it fails to switch back to the original wording for the next part. "It’s true that there is a lack of evidence in favor of that view. But that’s not something the author asserted." Maybe this explanation was intentional, but remember, this is the modified answer choice. There is no follow-up explanation for why the actual choice is incorrect with the original wording (and using the shoe factory as the subject).
Additionally, I think there is a typo in the final sentence of (A)'s explanation:
"...the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is incorrect" should conclude with "...is correct."
Wouldn't this also be the flaw where the author takes the absence of evidence to support their own argument? (I.e., Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean the argument is false etc). I believe this was an almost-flaw we saw in the 'Support for Tax Reduction' and was wondering if it could be applied here since that's what I first thought of upon reading the stimulus. (B) kind of gets at this idea too #help