I agree that JY's explanation for why B is wrong is lack-luster at best lol. But I think you can see that B is wrong by considering what it means for something to not be "relevant". It is not that Haynes being the worst inspector is entirely irrelevant from the concept of how many defective products were inspected by him. If every defective product returned was inspected by Haynes, this would be pretty strong evidence that Haynes is the worst inspector.
Young instead responds by challenging the pressuposition that because >half were inspected by Haynes, Haynes overlooks more defective products (as a proportion of those inspected) relative to the other 2 inspectors. I don't like JY's explanation because he imagines that the three inspectors each inspect 1/3. But this is not technically the presupposition in West's argument. The presupposition is simply that Haynes' products being >half of the defective ones reflects some disproportionality (i.e. he inspects less than half of the products). This is what Young denies in his response.
B seems tempting cause it feels like this makes the conclusion "irrelevant" to the premises–and in a sense it does (as does basically every challenge to an argument). But it does so by denying the pressupositon which makes E a much better answer. For B to be the best answer, it would require a much more immediate dismissal of the conclusion as entirely disconnected from the premises.
0
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
I agree that JY's explanation for why B is wrong is lack-luster at best lol. But I think you can see that B is wrong by considering what it means for something to not be "relevant". It is not that Haynes being the worst inspector is entirely irrelevant from the concept of how many defective products were inspected by him. If every defective product returned was inspected by Haynes, this would be pretty strong evidence that Haynes is the worst inspector.
Young instead responds by challenging the pressuposition that because >half were inspected by Haynes, Haynes overlooks more defective products (as a proportion of those inspected) relative to the other 2 inspectors. I don't like JY's explanation because he imagines that the three inspectors each inspect 1/3. But this is not technically the presupposition in West's argument. The presupposition is simply that Haynes' products being >half of the defective ones reflects some disproportionality (i.e. he inspects less than half of the products). This is what Young denies in his response.
B seems tempting cause it feels like this makes the conclusion "irrelevant" to the premises–and in a sense it does (as does basically every challenge to an argument). But it does so by denying the pressupositon which makes E a much better answer. For B to be the best answer, it would require a much more immediate dismissal of the conclusion as entirely disconnected from the premises.