Hi everyone. This is my first time using the discussion board so I apologize if it's a big longer than the typical posts. If you do decide to read it through though, I so so appreciate you.

This post is about PT5 S5 Q15 and really any other questions that have the same problem. My problem is that the question can have two meanings. Here is the question: "Q's response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85-90 year-olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?"

The first interpretation of the question can be paraphrased like this: "Which of the following is a hypothesis that Q's response supports and also counters the evidence presented by M?" The second interpretations can be paraphrased as such: "Which of the following is a hypothesis that M's evidence supports that can also be countered by Q. The difference is that in the first interpretation, the clause [in support of which one of the following hypotheses] is completely separate from the others. In the second interpretation, the clause [in support of which one of the following hypotheses] is embedded within the clause [any use by M of the evidence about 85-90 year-olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses].

(In syntactic language, interpretation one has a structure in which the PP [in support of which one of the following hypotheses] is the daughter of the main VP, while interpretation two has a structure in which the same PP is the daughter of the main DP.)

The difference between the two structures is pretty critical because it determines which person the answer choice must support, Q or M. The problem is since both structures are equally valid, both interpretations are correct. So, my question is, how are we the test takers supposed to know which interpretation to assume, when both meanings are grammatically correct?

I'm pretty confused on this question.

Here's how I thought of it:

Premise: Alicia and Peter had equal blameworthiness for the same "crime" (using another person's car w/o permission)

Conclusion: Alicia should be charged with the same punishment as Peter's.

AC C is the correct answer, but A is the answer I originally chose. After looking at explanations online, I now understand why C is correct. AC C negates the premise by establishing that Alicia and Peter actually had unequal blameworthiness, so it can't support the conclusion that Alicia should be treated the same as Peter.

However, I am still confused as to why A is wrong. The conclusion states that Alicia should have the same punishment as Peter which is automobile theft, not that Peter should have the same punishment as Alicia which is a warning. So, that must mean that both of them being charged with automobile theft is more "equal" punishment than them being both simply having a warning. Doesn't this only make sense if being charged with automobile theft is more just than getting a warning?

In other words, if A is true, then we would get a conclusion that Peter should be charged with the same punishment as Alicia. But that is the opposite of what the conclusion states. So wouldn't A need to be false?

One of my biggest weaknesses at Flawed Method of Reasoning is distinguishing between a minor flaw and a major flaw in a stimulus that has multiple flaws, and the answer choices include both flaws. In the explanation video of PT19 S2 Q07, JYP was able to identify the minor flaw by hypothetically eliminating it and seeing if the conclusion is still logical. When it wasn't he identified that flaw as the minor flaw. However, can't this also be used for major flaws? If you eliminate the major flaw, the argument will still not be completely logical because the minor flaw is still there. So, to me it seems like that method does not really distinguish between minor and major flaws because applying it to both types of laws yield the argument as weak in both cases.

I'm really struggling with this and any advice is appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-07/