User Avatar
32747
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
32747
Saturday, May 13 2017

@ thanks for your explanation of why answer A is incorrect. I see the assumption I made and also I see the irrelevance of the answer choice. Thanks again.

I need some help with this question. I got the right answer but in Blind Review I changed the answer to a wrong choice. The right answer is D. I understand why that is right. The problem I have is trying to determine why A is wrong. Is it just that A doesn't pertain to the argument? I believe the premise to be "It is unrealistic to expect [upgraded training programs with increased classroom hours] to compensate for the pilots' lack of actual flying time". The conclusion is "Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes." The gap would be the relationship from "lack of actual flying time" to "commercial crashes". That gap is filled by D with C being a tempting but incorrect answer choice. I just can't elucidate why A is wrong except that it doesn't address the relationship. I guess what I am trying to say is, it seems to me that answer choice A is an assumption that the stimulus makes. I guess I am assuming when it refers to "Training programs" that could include a training program that increases the pilots actual flying time. In any case, your input would be appreciated.

Admin edit: Please review the forum rules:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

#3: Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright. Not a good way to take the first few steps down a long road that is your legal career.

User Avatar
32747
Wednesday, May 03 2017

Very interested.

PrepTests ·
PT127.S2.Q9
User Avatar
32747
Wednesday, May 03 2017

A little bit of clarification is needed for me. I have heard and read multiple sources say that Craig never accepts the truth of the premises.

Rifka conclusion: We do not need to stop and ask for directions.

Rifka Premise: We would not need to do that (stop and ask for directions) unless we were lost.

Rifka Implicit Premise: We are Lost.

It seems to me that Craig accepts Rifka's stated premise but rejects the implicit premise. It seems that he accepts the stated premise by saying "we are lost" so we need to stop. That would also make answer choice C more attractive though still wrong because he doesn't touch on validity and he would only be accepting a single premise. And the answer choice says "premises". Assuming that since "premises" is plural it would imply acceptance of more than a single premise.

Am I right in thinking that Craig did accept the stated premise but rejected the implicit presmise?

Thanks.

User Avatar
32747
Thursday, Mar 02 2017

Thank you both for the explanations that you provided to assist my understanding. I really appreciate it. Sami, your explanation I think helped open my understanding. The difficulty was seeing that he came to his conclusion because he assumed different methods will always yield different results. Thanks again.

I am having difficulty seeing why the correct answer in this question is D. The argument shows that two methods of investigation yielded different results. The conclusion then states that there is no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies' results. Answer D states that the argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to "recognize that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results". I don't see how this is a flaw of the argument. If they had recognized that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results what affect does that have on a study that didn't have identical results.

Any insights that you can provide would be appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-09/

Confirm action

Are you sure?