PT25.S4.Q17 - concerned citizen: the mayor, an outspoken critic

Giant Panda

Hi guys,

I am really confused about this question: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-17/

After reading the question, I notice what the author is trying to do. It is trying to argue for a sentimental value to counteract the mayor's argument for the monetary value. And the conclusion argues can be translated as due to the great importance of the sentimental value the item listed should be restored.

From this, I immediately draw up the missing assumption which is almost a principle that is missing: if sentimental value in this case is greater than monetary value then the government needs to fix it despite the fiscal limitation.

As such, I moved into the answer choice and didn't find it or anything close to it.

So I was puzzled between A & B. And finally I chose A for the reason that the argument appealed to emotion. But it is wrong.

Why?

BinghamtonDave

The argument uses the word "afford" in a way in which the meaning shifts. This isn't easy to see and in my opinion, requires a real comfortability with idiomatic expressions. Essentially, to ask "can we afford to buy a new car?" is different from asking "can we afford not to buy a new car?" Implicit in the latter is the idea that the pros of buying a new car outweigh the cons of not buying a new car, hence switching the meaning of the question as a whole. Whereas, the first question is an open ended question that on first blush, seems more up for debate. It is in the ambiguity of the English language where the flaw occurs in this argument.

There is a switch from the use of the word afford in a dollars and cents sense by other people, to the use of the word afford to more of an appeal to things other than dollars and cents: i.e. respect/preservation for/of history by our author. At bottom, the arguer is trading on the ambiguity of the language.

I hope this helps
David

danielznelson

"Solely" if iffy, and I think for that word alone, you can rightfully eliminate it. After all, the author claims that preserving is crucial to maintaining respect for the government and its authority. In other words, historical preservation is needed to maintain respect.

Contrast that with what a true, solely emotional appeal to history would look like. It might look something like this, "But the mayor is wrong that we cannot afford such a luxury item, because this building is the last remaining link to our founding, which we should maintain for the sake of history."

I think something like that maybe could make "A" correct. Rather than appealing to the need to maintain respect for the government and its authority, the stimulus would instead strictly be appealing to history.

Even so, I'm still not sure this would be the best way to define the ultimate flaw, as the flaw is best seen in the final sentence, where "afford" is used twice but in a different way each time. This is where I'm most unsure, but the premise of history and of maintaining respect seems to support what looks to be a sub-conclusion (the final sentence), which then supports the conclusion, "I respectfully disagree that we cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint." In other words, stuff said about history leads us to a rhetorical question about whether we can afford to not restore the building, which purportedly props up the implicit conclusion that we can afford to do so.

I'm not sure if we can rightfully call the rhetorical question a sub-conclusion, but then again, it seems to be where the flaw lies, and should at least be considered a premise, in my mind. Otherwise, I don't know how "B" would be the correct answer. So even if the stimulus is making an emotional appeal to history, and even if that's a flaw (I'm still unsure whether it is just on its own), it's not the argument's main flaw connecting the conclusion to that final sentence.

inactive

Title had the wrong PT listed, fixed!

JustDoIt

I agree with what was said above.

Firstly, mayor is saying we can't afford it right now. The citizen misinterprets this to mean that we can't afford to at all, financially speaking. The issue is confounded further because he uses this as the baseline but at the very least, he is still responding to the financial terms said by the mayor, until we reach the conclusion. This immediately switches when he says "not." When someone says we can not afford to miss an opportunity, that means something completely different than the purely financial sense of afford, the sense that we were dealing with for the bulk of this argument. So the problem here is that the term afford switches.

This is not an appeal to emotion. By saying that we can't afford to miss this opportunity, that is not necessarily someone appealing to emotion. I know it can kind seem like it does but if we try to pinpoint the exact emotion that it is appealing to, we can't do so because it doesn't exist. If the conclusion said, "we should rebuild because we will regret if we don't," then A would be the right answer choice. The appeal here is to regret or fear. But since it doesn't, and since that term shifts, B is correct.