can anyone explain if the newspaper subscriber's conclusion swapped to: "But there is at least one alternative hypothesis/explanation to Arnot's argument."
I got this right quickly but I think only because it followed right after the previous question. If I wasn't already looking for the same concept, I may have been flip-flopping with D, and unsure of when to take a charitable interpretation of an author's premise, and when it would be strawmanning. Here, it seems to me to be a reasonable weakness (it's true that it's an assumption), so it didn't seem "over the top" strawmanning.
I think for future, I would think, ok, even if the author DID strawman the argument a bit, that still leaves a major flaw of having not proven his own argument of NOT the case that [making govt changes --c--> eliminate social ills].
#feedback like other people, understand why A is the correct answer choice, but I don't agree with the answer explanation or why D is not correct. Arnot is saying what would happen if the government did a certain thing, not that it ever would or even if it were possible that it could. The subscriber then responds by saying that Arnot is wrong for making an assumption that the government would actually ever implement these changes, which Arnot never does. That is a distortion, is it not?
Bruh I hate it when my ADHD brain just refuses to read an answer in full and then I choose an answer I know is not right because I've eliminated an answer I haven't even read.
Realizing that the content of the dubious claim doesn't actually matter. We don't need to know what the author thinks is dubious, we just need to understand the fact that the author is rejecting Arnot's conclusion because of a purported weakening of a premise. If we ignore the content of the "dubious" claim (the government can be trusted to act in the public's interest) then it becomes more clear that the form of weakening another person's argument (by showing weakness in one of their points/premises) does not mean we cannot nonetheless accept their conclusion.
Oh wow, this one didn't feel that hard to me. I think it's because we just talked about this type of flaw in the previous lesson. I will remember this feeling of triumph when I inevitably get a 2 star question wrong though
Ok I understand why the correct answer is correct, but I answered D based on the idea that "making the government trustworthy of acting in the best interest of the public" could constitute a fundamental change of the sort that Arnot proposes.
After all, whether or not a government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the public is a quality of government which could fundamentally change, is it not? So in my view, the author distorts Arnots argument by ignoring that actually the trustworthiness of government cannot be one of the possible fundamental changes.
We don't get any details about what arnots proposed changes actually are, just that they would be fundamental.
So I read the authors argument as the government cannot change because it cannot change.
Am I totally off base here? Have I explained my thinking well enough?
I understand that (A) is a better answer than (D) and that choosing (D) requires some mental gymnastics, but I still think there is some unintentional straw manning going on in the author's argument in that Armot is technically making an argument about a hypothetical world (certain changes in the government "WOULD" take away social ills... never says that they are/are not going to happen). Therefore, the newspaper subscriber's attack of the assumption required for the conditions of that hypothetical world to be met is completely irrelevant because Armot never comments on the likelihood of those changes happening. For all we know, Armot agrees with the newspaper subscriber that the government is unlikely to act in the public's best interests and merely believes that if it did happen, our most vexing social ills would be eliminated.
Does this resonate with anyone? Please let me know if I am missing something!
I really don't understand why C doesn't work, even after the explanation. The assumption can still be true but the conclusion false -- why is this wrong?
I didn't choose AC E b/c I didn't think it was THE flaw, BUT "government" did not read the same to me in the premise (i.e. as an institution, systems, policies) as it did in the conclusion (i.e. as people, legislators, regulators, govt employees).
So, I guess I just need to see where this type of flaw is demonstrated accurately.
0
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.
90 comments
Level 5, and I got it 9 seconds under the time. Chat, I fear I may not be cooked after all.
I only got this right because the lesson before this introduced the concept and I expected the question to reflect the lesson.
can anyone explain if the newspaper subscriber's conclusion swapped to: "But there is at least one alternative hypothesis/explanation to Arnot's argument."
Will that still be making (A) correct?
anyone have any tips for differentiating/identifying the different subgroup question types or is this just going to have to be memorization
like the part to whole - ad hominem - etc
I got this right quickly but I think only because it followed right after the previous question. If I wasn't already looking for the same concept, I may have been flip-flopping with D, and unsure of when to take a charitable interpretation of an author's premise, and when it would be strawmanning. Here, it seems to me to be a reasonable weakness (it's true that it's an assumption), so it didn't seem "over the top" strawmanning.
I think for future, I would think, ok, even if the author DID strawman the argument a bit, that still leaves a major flaw of having not proven his own argument of NOT the case that [making govt changes --c--> eliminate social ills].
RAHHHHHHHHHHHH THIS IS TOO EASY
finally got a level 5 difficulty question right and it felt easy this time AUGH thank the LSAT lords
had it right then switched my answer last second. oh my FUCKING GOD
#feedback like other people, understand why A is the correct answer choice, but I don't agree with the answer explanation or why D is not correct. Arnot is saying what would happen if the government did a certain thing, not that it ever would or even if it were possible that it could. The subscriber then responds by saying that Arnot is wrong for making an assumption that the government would actually ever implement these changes, which Arnot never does. That is a distortion, is it not?
Bruh I hate it when my ADHD brain just refuses to read an answer in full and then I choose an answer I know is not right because I've eliminated an answer I haven't even read.
I guessed and got lucky, lord is with me and now let me watch the explanation video ahahhaha
This took a second to get in Blind Review
idk how i got this right in the target time, every other answer choice just didnt make sense
Realizing that the content of the dubious claim doesn't actually matter. We don't need to know what the author thinks is dubious, we just need to understand the fact that the author is rejecting Arnot's conclusion because of a purported weakening of a premise. If we ignore the content of the "dubious" claim (the government can be trusted to act in the public's interest) then it becomes more clear that the form of weakening another person's argument (by showing weakness in one of their points/premises) does not mean we cannot nonetheless accept their conclusion.
Oh wow, this one didn't feel that hard to me. I think it's because we just talked about this type of flaw in the previous lesson. I will remember this feeling of triumph when I inevitably get a 2 star question wrong though
Ok I understand why the correct answer is correct, but I answered D based on the idea that "making the government trustworthy of acting in the best interest of the public" could constitute a fundamental change of the sort that Arnot proposes.
After all, whether or not a government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the public is a quality of government which could fundamentally change, is it not? So in my view, the author distorts Arnots argument by ignoring that actually the trustworthiness of government cannot be one of the possible fundamental changes.
We don't get any details about what arnots proposed changes actually are, just that they would be fundamental.
So I read the authors argument as the government cannot change because it cannot change.
Am I totally off base here? Have I explained my thinking well enough?
Got it right AND under the target time <3
#feedback!!! Someone please make more sense on why c is not the correct answer
honestly i just saw a word i wasn't comfortable with (repudiate) and immediately skipped the AC which i need to stop doing
GOT IT IN BR
we are soo back! yay
I understand that (A) is a better answer than (D) and that choosing (D) requires some mental gymnastics, but I still think there is some unintentional straw manning going on in the author's argument in that Armot is technically making an argument about a hypothetical world (certain changes in the government "WOULD" take away social ills... never says that they are/are not going to happen). Therefore, the newspaper subscriber's attack of the assumption required for the conditions of that hypothetical world to be met is completely irrelevant because Armot never comments on the likelihood of those changes happening. For all we know, Armot agrees with the newspaper subscriber that the government is unlikely to act in the public's best interests and merely believes that if it did happen, our most vexing social ills would be eliminated.
Does this resonate with anyone? Please let me know if I am missing something!
I have a knack for narrowing it down to two, one of which being the correct one, and choosing the wrong AC.
I really don't understand why C doesn't work, even after the explanation. The assumption can still be true but the conclusion false -- why is this wrong?
I didn't choose AC E b/c I didn't think it was THE flaw, BUT "government" did not read the same to me in the premise (i.e. as an institution, systems, policies) as it did in the conclusion (i.e. as people, legislators, regulators, govt employees).
So, I guess I just need to see where this type of flaw is demonstrated accurately.