Also, the first paragraph of passage B is ambiguous in the way it is written. It says: "They think that if you make more money you pay a higher rate on your entire earnings". This is can mean two things: a) they pay the higher rate on the entire income or b) they pay a higher rate than other people on the entire income. Then the passage denies a) explicitly but b) seems to be left unanswered. Interpretation b) is a reasonable literal interpretation of that statement and is definitely true about progressive taxes: someone in the higher portion of the society pays a higher rate on its entire income (a higher average rate) than someone below the poverty line (who would pay nothing). In fact, we know this is true because it is implied in the definition of progressive taxes we get from passage A: "requiring high income earners to forfeit a bigger share of their incomes in tax than low-income earners have to pay". This interpretation of the statement is clearly an objection to progressive taxes and therefore, clearly serves to answer the question of option D.
If the author of passage B would have been content in merely denying the interpretation A, then its defense of progressive taxes would have been rather empty. Reader could have asked, ok, but doesn't interpretation B mean that progressive taxes treat payers unequally, and thus, unfairly? But the author knew this was a possible variation of the same objection which is why paragraph 2 is designed to explain why equality does not merely mean treating everybody equally but treating everyone in the same conditions equally. Thus, the second paragraph serves to prove that the idea that some pay a higher overall portion of their income is valuable, morally correct and in conformity with the idea of treating everyone equally.
All this is just to say the following:
The criticism of a lot of people towards progressive taxes is literally ambiguous.
Interpretation by context would initially seem to favor the interpretation A): people would pay THE higher rate on their entire income, because this is the one that the author explicitly denies .
But this is not a complete picture of the context because paragraph 2 is designed to tackle the other interpretation of the objection. Is this mere chance? I don't think so, it seems that the author understood what some of the critics were trying to say.
With that in mind, what misunderstanding did the author mean to target when he said: "a lot of people don't understand graduated taxes". I think he meant to target both misunderstandings: a) the factual one about how higher earners pay the higher rate on the entire income and b) the conceptual one about what it means to treat taxpayers equally in the relevant sense.
How exactly does A support the hypothesis that phenazine allows access to essential nutrients for interior bacteria? Option A only refers to bacteria that do not produce phenazine. Are we supposed to assume that colonies that produce phenazine do not form wrinkled surfaces? Why? How can the LSAT expect us to be so intellectually generous taking into account how the test usually works?
And about answer C. I think it's written in a way that it compares non-phenazine producing bacteria buried in rich soil with phenazine bacteria in non-rich soil (otherwise it should have said so, because it is a special circumstance and if nothing is said about it, then it wouldn't apply). Under this light, the fact that bacteria serves as access to nutrients for interior bacteria helps to explain why phenazine producing bacteria grow at the same rate as the other bacteria while in inferior conditions.
Btw, another way of saving my argument would be saying: Passage B states that progressive taxes seem unfair to a lot of people. Can the apparent unfairness be defined as an objection. Why not? Giving the appearance of unfairness is not a good thing for an idea.
This might feel like I'm cheating but this is just the result of the imprecision of the expression "objecting to something".
Hi JY! Thanks for the help!
I think yours is a conceivable way of making option D incorrect. To put it in other words, it would go like this:
Does passage B refer to a criticism directed to progressive taxes?
Yes it does. It states that to some, it may seem unfair.
Does this count as an objection of progressive taxes?
In your view, it doesn't because it is based on a misconception or inaccuracy regarding the nature of progressive taxes. However, this only means that the objection does not stand, or is unreasonable, or misdirected, but who are we to deny it the character of an objection? The ordinary use of the word suggests an advance against a certain position, that is to say, an attempt to weaken a certain position, regardless of its eventual relevance or strength. Whether in court rooms or in academic essays, when we answer an objection we don't replace it with another word once we come to the conclusion that it does not meet our standards. We just say it's a weak objection, or unreasonable, or flawed, or irrelevant, just as with an argument.
Now, one might still say: OK, it's an objection but it's not technically an objection to progressive taxes themselves because progressive taxes don't tax a rate for an entire income.
Ultimately, my issue is that an objection against something is such a broad expression, as it is usually used, that it really allows for statements that are off their mark. We are just not very strict in determining what makes an objection and what doesn't. In other words: an argument made in an attempt to weaken a certain position can be understood as an objection against that position, regardless of whether, after due analysis, it does not accurately address the nature of the position.
Now, but what happens if you also use a high level of literal scrutiny to option C. Where, for example, does passage A express that a flat tax can or cannot be fair to all tax payers? Sure, it says that it can be made progressive, but the question of whether this can make it fair is left lingering. And whether being progressive makes it fair to all tax payers is an even bigger enigma. And what does fair or fair to all tax payers even mean, in the first place. If the author of passage A would have been concerned with answering this question, then he would have surely explained what it means to him. And what about passage B, it certainly states that it imposes a bigger burden on middle classes but does that give an answer as to whether flat taxes can be fair? Once again, how am I supposed to know if I don't know what fair to all taxpayers even means to the author? Just looking at all these gaps in option C also makes me feel a lot better about D.
In conclusion, my feeling is that the LSAC just went too far with this trap. Can the question be saved? I don't know, it just depends on too many implicit and vague issues that are not explicitly addressed by the passages.
1. Alright I'm sorry for the emotion. I'll take that out.
2. When you make an argument you are not only concerned with answering the question to the issue (i.e. your thesis) you are also concerned with stating whatever is useful to prove or to even explain your argument. If you are concerned with the first one, you are concerned with the second one, otherwise, why not make a circular argument and be done with it? Given that, both authors in both passages certainly use describing objections to progressive taxes to make their point. In passage A, the objections of incentives and opportunities for avoiding taxes in progressive systems is used to show an advantage of flat taxes over progressive ones. In passage B, the objection of unfairness is mentioned so as to later discuss it and refute it. At the very least, it serves to introduce the argument and the main issue.
3. I have already done that but it's taking time. Im actually sharing my concerns just to channel my anxiety. The other questions are 23 and 25 from section 2 LR.
4. As much as I respect JY, I wasn't convinced by his answer either. In his video, he concedes that you can get an objection out of the last paragraph of passage A but then just simplifies it as if it's just not the same as in C because C is clearly an important question to answer. With this respect, as I've already said, I don't think that being concerned with answering a question necessarily means that it has to be an important question. But also, why isn't D an important question? And referring to passage B, it merely states that it's a misunderstanding of most people. But you don't have to agree with the objection to be concerned with describing it.
I most certainly did not misread any question. Question says "concerned with answering" it doesnt say "mainly concerned with answering" nor " mostly concerned with answering" nor "what is the main question the authors are concerned with answering". If you answer a question then you are most certainly concerned with answering it. Period.
I also gave a complete explanation in that forum but if Jeffort's explanation convinced you then I don't see a lot of hope for you. No offense, no hope for me either, i don't see how can I improve in such an embarassingly illogical test.
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-1-passage-4-questions/
Anyone can tell me why option D is wrong? Passage A mentions an objection to progressive taxes when it highlights the incentives for avoiding it and the opportunities to do so and passage B mentions the objection of unfairness in the first paragraph. Just how can D be wrong? Anyone is with me in sending a complaint to LSAC?
Another psychological tip for this section:
Unlike the rest of the LSAT, each question in this section is completely independent from the other. Therefore, it could be a little bit daunting to realize that all of your hard work doesn't "pay-off" for more than one single question. Moreover, the fact that you have to "start-again" 25 times and be accurate for all of these during 35 crappy minutes is a quite stressful thing. All of this invariably leads to one thing: over-anxious reading of the stimulus (since you don't care that much about the reading and the text seems to be on your way) and, on the other hand, over-relaxed/careless reading of the questions (since it feels like you're finally seeing the light and about to move on).
So here's a bit of a buddhist/dalai lama relaxing tip that some of you could use. Whenever you approach LR questions (specially those with long stimulus), try to tell yourself the story behind it. Actually USE body language to accompany each bloody sentence. So if the stimulus goes "Dogs tend to poo more in parks than in sideways" actually RELEASE the poop as you are reading it. And do not try to come up with a conclusion or a possible answer before reading the choices (except for the predictable questions that you should easily recognize if you're about to take the june thing) or at least don't over-emphasize that part. Read attentively and go through the answer options and READ THE OPTIONS with care, NOT with relief. This will help you avoid a lot of mistakes related to traps in the answer choices, and shell game traps where LSAT plants an idea in your head that throws you completely the other way.
Basically, strap your balls on while you're reading the text in the stimulus and don't release them while reading the answers (not just yet anyway).
Peace and good luck everyone!
Hey everyone! I guess we're all kinda freaking out about the june thing. Here's a good, solid, full-proof conclusion that I've come up with after taking several prep tests in the last couple of weeks.
Now, I think my abilities range from somewhere in the 160s to 174/5, but this tip might apply to others as well. I had prepared extensively through the winter getting consistent scores 170+ (three consecutive 170, 171, 172). After continuing with a softer preparation through april/may, and then restarting full-on a couple of weeks ago I noticed that my logical reasoning score had gone way down. I was freaking out, missing 3-5 questions per section, without confidence/certainty. I decided to buy a book of advanced lsat that collects a lot of harder questions from earlier tests so I could improve my accuracy. But although it worked to get some concepts straight, it was a psychological killer. I was really second-guessing myself all the time because I would often think the questions were way harder than they really were or I was trying to come up with an absolute reason of why I was getting some questions wrong, started taking a reductionist formal approach to the questions.
So then I decided to tackle LR the way I had in the past (individual sections) in a relaxed (but accurately timed) manner, blind method and then checking the answers shortly afterwards. I started improving a lot (down to -2,-3 and then -1, -2) and I had a sort of epiphany.
Although many of you already know that formal logic is not that important for this section some of you might use it to gain more certainty and avoid some mistakes. That's the most dangerous thing you could do. Basically, avoiding over-abstraction and focusing on the reading comprehension skill of LR is KEY. I mean, yes, you could avoid some mistakes by getting to the core with abstract thinking but the questions that really call for that kind of thinking appear usually once or twice in a section, no more. There are many more mistakes that you can avoid by reading closely and scrutinizing the terms of the premises and conclusions, which is way easier and less time consuming.
I hope this is useful, it has definitely worked back for me as I'm back in the 170s train and hope to stay there all the way to the real thing.
It's true that option D could be harmful to the environment in that it would make people buy products they wouldn't buy in the first place. But maybe the recipients wouldn't buy it, despite being more interested than the average consumer, or they would have found out of the product eventually from another source and would have bought it anyway, without the direct advertisement. The point is, we don't really know.
But what we do know about D is that it denies the possibility that these companies mostly send the advertisements to everyone, without any discrimination. Because of D, companies actually target the advertisements and waste less paper than in a scenario where they just send it out carelessly to everyone.
Therefore, the truth of D is sufficient for concluding that there is less damage to the environment than could have been otherwise presumed, but is not sufficient for saying that it damages the environment. In other words, the only thing we are sure of is that D strengthens the argument.