Arnot’s editorial : change some stuff in the government then we can get rid of our big problems
Other side: you’re wrong. Even if we change the small stuff, government might not care about us and continue as usual, have the big problems not get fixed. Glass is half full or half empty (targeting assumption about the government. Kinda negative/passive aggressive)
Stem: which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the argument’s reasoning (the other side, not Arnot’s editorial. Does the ‘other side’s argument have any issues with it?
Honestly, wasn’t sure of the exact meaning of “repudiates” but based on the context of the rest, it seems to mean something they’re disputing or saying the claim isn’t good because they said that they (Arnot’s editorial) are relying on the government having good intentions so if they changes are made, then the government will eliminate the big problems. Because the government stinks (according to the subscriber), the subscriber is saying the editorial’s claim is bad.
A is correct.
Could go through each of the rest of the choices but they felt either what they said wasn't what the argument was doing/saying or accurately describing the argument's role/purpose/function.
E was just wrong completely and a nice freebee to eliminate.
B isn't correct because there isn't a sufficient-necessary relationship in the stimulus. Rather the flaw in the argument is in the premise ("After all, the argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public").
Remember that the flaw will always be in the support - and that support relationship is focused on the last two sentences, the first sentence is giving context as it is the opposing viewpoint.
If you still have a hard time with eliminating B, can you share what you find to be the sufficient-necessary relationship?
If you're thinking that this is the sufficient necessary relationship: fundamental change -> eliminating social ills
Then I would suggest redirecting your focus on the support instead, which is saying that there is a dubious assumption that the government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public. Where does it fit into in the sufficient-necessary relationship?
the key term AC's are so strange they show up very often in my drills and are almost never the correct answer which has since made me curious what it would look like when it is the correct answer.
I still don't see why D is incorrect. Is it because the subscriber distorts a premise instead? He states that the claim (conclusion) depends upon a premise Arnot did not state (assumption that the government can be trusted to act in public interest). Any clarification would be great
@AlexanderFry I interpret distorting someone's argument as a situation in which other person said "X" but you claim the person said "Y." In other words, you're claiming they said something they didn't.
But claiming that someone made an assumption isn't a distortion of the other person's argument, even if it's wrong to say that the person made a certain assumption. (In this case it's also not clear that it's wrong to say the other person's argument made the assumption the author claims it makes. But even if it were, it's not a distortion.)
This is because you're still accurately portraying what they said. You may be wrong about the idea that what they said requires some other belief, but you're not changing what they said.
I was rlly confused on why D was incorrect, so I asked Chat, IK I'm not supposed to... but it helped. Sometimes I just need to see an example of the wrong AC to understand why it does not work with question. Hope this helps someone!
ARGUMENT:
Arnot argues that making fundamental changes in government would virtually eliminate major social ills.But this conclusion is false. After all, Arnot’s argument depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the public interest.
What the argument would look like IF D (straw man) were correct
Arnot claims that if we give the government sweeping new powers, all social problems will immediately disappear and government officials will always act perfectly. This is obviously false, since governments are often corrupt and inefficient. Therefore, Arnot’s conclusion must be wrong.
Why THIS is straw man
Arnot is made to say something stronger and different than what he actually argued
“All social problems will immediately disappear”
“Government will always act perfectly”
Those exaggerations do not appear in Arnot’s real argument.
The speaker attacks that exaggerated version instead.
So to clarify is this a basic AOE flaw? the idea that you didn't prove your POV therefore mine is clearly correct? Also again (whenever I dont know the meaning of the word its ALWAYS the answer) not joking may be a legit test day thing if POE permits
131 comments
lsat should have the option to look up what certain words mean... when was the last time you heard or used the word "repudiate" HA
@MM_xoxo Glad I am not the only one thinking this! Lol
went over time but i got it!
Stimulus notes (initial pass)
POV of a newspaper subscriber
Arnot’s editorial : change some stuff in the government then we can get rid of our big problems
Other side: you’re wrong. Even if we change the small stuff, government might not care about us and continue as usual, have the big problems not get fixed. Glass is half full or half empty (targeting assumption about the government. Kinda negative/passive aggressive)
Stem: which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the argument’s reasoning (the other side, not Arnot’s editorial. Does the ‘other side’s argument have any issues with it?
Honestly, wasn’t sure of the exact meaning of “repudiates” but based on the context of the rest, it seems to mean something they’re disputing or saying the claim isn’t good because they said that they (Arnot’s editorial) are relying on the government having good intentions so if they changes are made, then the government will eliminate the big problems. Because the government stinks (according to the subscriber), the subscriber is saying the editorial’s claim is bad.
A is correct.
Could go through each of the rest of the choices but they felt either what they said wasn't what the argument was doing/saying or accurately describing the argument's role/purpose/function.
E was just wrong completely and a nice freebee to eliminate.
I got this right but the explanation made me even more confused...am I the only one who just isn't getting the explanation
wait this was so hard for me lol
Finally got my first level 5 question correct. ( I still get level 2 questions wrong)
@CarliPaukette Yeah, me too! :D
But also... yeah, me too... :(
Got it in blind review after googling "repudiates" means :[
@bleonard04 same!
got it in BR but dang
@yes-coconuts Same! I will take it as a win!
I'm still a bit confused why this isn't B. can someone explain?
@NolanWright
B isn't correct because there isn't a sufficient-necessary relationship in the stimulus. Rather the flaw in the argument is in the premise ("After all, the argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public").
Remember that the flaw will always be in the support - and that support relationship is focused on the last two sentences, the first sentence is giving context as it is the opposing viewpoint.
If you still have a hard time with eliminating B, can you share what you find to be the sufficient-necessary relationship?
If you're thinking that this is the sufficient necessary relationship: fundamental change -> eliminating social ills
Then I would suggest redirecting your focus on the support instead, which is saying that there is a dubious assumption that the government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public. Where does it fit into in the sufficient-necessary relationship?
Lmk if that makes sense or not!
getting this right in time actually boosted my confidence so much
Basically subscriber did not like the argument Arnot gave
YES I GOT IT RIGHT WITHIN TIME this was a confidence booster
This question felt so obvious so quickly that I double guessed myself because I didnt think it could be that easy...ughh
@nedyvelazquez Right there with ya.. it just takes practice!
its so funny - i was like - its "a" proceeds to choose - whatever i chose and in BR i go - its a and still proceeds to choose whatever i chose.
First 5 star I got right LFG
@MaxSeltzerLaw we got this!
Correct with only 4 seconds over. Yes I just got lucky I know.
the key term AC's are so strange they show up very often in my drills and are almost never the correct answer which has since made me curious what it would look like when it is the correct answer.
"hopefully you got it right" ok bro
@ediffess lmao
Chat Gbt even got this one wrong. I picked B it choose C but the answer was A
@SubahEid WHAT GBT
yeah i got this wrong cause i didn't know what repudiates means lol
I still don't see why D is incorrect. Is it because the subscriber distorts a premise instead? He states that the claim (conclusion) depends upon a premise Arnot did not state (assumption that the government can be trusted to act in public interest). Any clarification would be great
@AlexanderFry I interpret distorting someone's argument as a situation in which other person said "X" but you claim the person said "Y." In other words, you're claiming they said something they didn't.
But claiming that someone made an assumption isn't a distortion of the other person's argument, even if it's wrong to say that the person made a certain assumption. (In this case it's also not clear that it's wrong to say the other person's argument made the assumption the author claims it makes. But even if it were, it's not a distortion.)
This is because you're still accurately portraying what they said. You may be wrong about the idea that what they said requires some other belief, but you're not changing what they said.
getting a level 5 difficulty question right is like solving quantum physics
@dexter310 actually lol'ed
@AliGoldberg W
@dexter310 lol
I was rlly confused on why D was incorrect, so I asked Chat, IK I'm not supposed to... but it helped. Sometimes I just need to see an example of the wrong AC to understand why it does not work with question. Hope this helps someone!
ARGUMENT:
Arnot argues that making fundamental changes in government would virtually eliminate major social ills.But this conclusion is false. After all, Arnot’s argument depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the public interest.
What the argument would look like IF D (straw man) were correct
Why THIS is straw man
Arnot is made to say something stronger and different than what he actually argued
“All social problems will immediately disappear”
“Government will always act perfectly”
Those exaggerations do not appear in Arnot’s real argument.
The speaker attacks that exaggerated version instead.
So to clarify is this a basic AOE flaw? the idea that you didn't prove your POV therefore mine is clearly correct? Also again (whenever I dont know the meaning of the word its ALWAYS the answer) not joking may be a legit test day thing if POE permits
I got it right in BR after I googled what "repudiate" meant.