Subscription pricing
Hey guys, I had a difficult time eliminating answer choice C on this one. I do understand why A is correct but I can't 100% eliminate C. Explanations I've come across indicate that C just restates what was already stated in the premises, but I still see some slight gaps that C would seem to fill in, so I'm going to take a stab at what I think is going on here, and was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether there's more to add to my explanation or to confirm that it is sufficient. So here it is:
Basically, this is a sufficient/psuedo sufficient assumption question.
The argument is as follows:
Conclusion:
4) What is relevant is not symbolism (not S) but what it directly presents (DP). (R--->not S and DP)
Analysis:
So I see that symbolism is a new term in the conclusion, and I would like to get from R-->not S). I know from "2)" that R-->not E, so I see that adding in not E-->not S would allow the portion of the conclusion, R--->not S to follow via R-->not E-->not S. So that makes sense for A being correct.
However, when I ready the conclusion: "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience," I ignored what was in between the commas and was looking to justify the conclusion, "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is what it directly presents to experience." So I focused on that.
Looking back at the premises, I saw from "1)" that paying attention necessitates intrinsic properties and from "3)" that paying attention also necessitates looking at what is directly presented. But the premises never explicitly connected intrinsic properties to that which is directly presented; it was simply implied.
So going back to the conclusion -- which I qualified thinking that the middle (not S) was extraneous -- I thought that in order to conclude, "What is relevant is what is directly presented (R-->DP), I figured why not make the intrinsic/directly presented connection explicit? So I plugged answer choice C) Relevant-->Intrinsic, leading to (R-->Intrinsic)--->DP.
Where I think I might have gone wrong:
Plugging in Relevant-->Intrinsic still leaves the the original gap between Intrinsic and Directly Presented open. Also, Was answer C already stated in Premise 2) as E-->not R, as the contrapositive of R-->Intrinsic?
The way I was supposed to have thought about it?:
Paying attention leads to looking at only intrinsic properties and paying attention involves only looking at what is directly presented, so there's no leap in concluding that intrinsic properties involve what is directly presented. So it adds nothing to the part of the conclusion that what is Relevant are only instrinsic properties.
However, connecting Relevant to whatever is not symbolic is an open gap that never connected Extrinsic properties to being symbolic and hence answer choice A) making this explicit completely (or almost entirely in the case of this being psuedo-sufficient) bridges the gap.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-24/
I think the question pertains to Preptest 1, Section 4, #6.
Japan is a model of the type of training effort required to be one of the most successful economies.
What is that training effort requirement? To train as many people as POSSIBLE in certain technological skills.
Training as many people as possible is not the same as training as many people as NEEDED, meaning that Japan may be doing their due diligence by training all qualified people that they can get their hands on—landing Japan into the position as one of the most successful economies—but it still may (and in fact does) have a shortage of technically qualified people.
The stimulus did not say Japan was maximally successful, just that it is grouped into the category of being more successful than all the other countries not so grouped. In other words, Japan could reach an even higher level of success if there was no shortage of workers.