Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 6 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 574 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Related Discussions
LR Quiz 2
akistotle
Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
Hi again,
As with yesterday, I made another parallel (flawed) argument for an LR stimulus I had troubles with. I would appreciate it if you could help out by answering 
Letter to the editor: Your newspaper seems to heavily biased against renewable energy. The study presented in the article "Can We Survive on Renewable Energy?" distorts evidence and shows flawed reasoning. The article states that countries with lower rates of renewable energy had lower average cost of electricity than other countries. However, that will not be the case for long, since the average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy. Thus, the evidence actually supports the view that the use of renewable energy should be increased.
The reasoning in the letter writer's argument is flawed in that it
(A) concludes based on evidence from the article it criticizes
(B) fails to take in to account the possibility that using renewable energy is often costly
(C) fails to take in to account the possibility that not everyone wants to use renewable energy
(D) fails to take in to account the possibility that the average cost of electricity in other countries is also increasing
(E) does not show any evidence against the viewpoint in the article
Comments
E! Cookies!!! (Much less sure on this one stupid Flaw questions)
Edit: Changed to D...my peers have given me reason to suspect I was wrong.
I want to say- (D) "fails to take in to account the possibility that the average cost of electricity in other countries is also increasing"
I was thinking about why it was so hard for awhile...
My conclusion: the person making the argument likes making conclusions.
That's what made it so hard. He concluded that:
1.) the newspaper is biased against renewable energy.
2.) the article has flawed reasoning
3.) the evidence shows that renewable energy should be increased.
So what's his main conclusion? I think it is the 2nd one. But I'm still not 100% sure, which makes it hard to answer....maybe no cookie for me...still say E based on my reasoning above
Yeah, this was a toughie and took my more than a minute. I read (E) first and then read (D). For some reason, I felt as if (E) was one of those "piggy-back" answers to (D). Personally, I think (E) is saying: "it's totally true that the person clearly does not give evidence against the viewpoint" and then (D) comes along and says "And here's why.."
D
basically my reasoning is this:
context but still relevant: The article states that countries with lower rates of renewable energy had lower average cost of electricity than other countries.
I think the main flaw is in the first conclusion of: However, that will not be the case for long
why?: since the average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy.
the flaw is D, it can def be the case that in other countries avg cost of electricity is also rising, thus to me it makes the conclusion even less likely because there won't be a huge change in the difference between countries after all, and the countries with lower rates of renewable energy may still have the lower avg cost of electricity compared to the other changing countries
I suck at explaining but yeah.. lmao
What I'm wondering is, is the actual size of the cookie-prize really this tiny -->
<-- ??
Hmmm it would seem I'm out numbered...
I still contest that his main conclusion is;
"The study distorts evidence and shows flawed reasoning"
If that is the conclusion then AC D is no longer relevant and only E is. Because right now the article is correct, whatever happens in the future is not relevant. E is correct because it says "does not show any evidence against the view point in the article" which it doesn't. It just says it's true and that in the future it won't be.
How can you say the article is flawed if you don't show it's reasoning to be untrue?
Just my thought process...
I may be wrong in this, but it's always worked for me. If you remember lots of J.Y.'s LR questions, he always does "ok, here is the however (or other words like but) rendering the stuff before it to be context". Having this in mind and hearing his voice say that in my head (IM NOT A CREEP, I PROMISE) has really helped me when breaking arguments apart.
Idk, that's how I personally see it :P
akistotle tell us who is right so we can have our cookies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aha! I see your point now. There are 4 freaking things that can be called "conclusions" in this dudes argument. I didn't even see that one lol
WHEN IN DOUBT, HAVE JY SPEAK TO YOU IN YOUR HEAD!!!
JY IN MY HEAD: "WHAT IS THIS ANSWER CHOICE, THIS ANSWER CHOICE IS STUPID, WE COULD SAY THAT CATS FLY AND THAT WOULD BE A BETTER ANSWER CHOICE THAN THIS"
@TheMikey i still say it's E lol. Even after rereading that I still think his main point is that the article is flawed. His "however that won't be the case" is a sub conclusion that supports his main conclusion that the article is flawed!
I see why you think that the MC is the article is flawed. But remember that it's context and whatever is in the context is just stuff the author is stating.
I agree that "however that wont be the case for long" is a sub conc. but I think the MC is "Thus, the evidence actually supports the view that the use of renewable energy should be increased".
BUT remember, the flaw can be from the premise to the sub conclusion as well, not just to the MC. I'm sure you know this but I just want to emphasize it since this does seem like a really tough question. it def is a convoluted stimulus with what seems like a bunch of conclusions, but everything before however is just simply context :P
I completely see why you think the view points in the context can be the MC though, but I think the toughness in this question is being able to parce out the important stuff from the less important stuff.
idk lol, AKISTOTLE what is the answerrrrrrrrrrr bro
The original question appears on PT 51.
"... this question confuses how a variable relates to a group of other variables and how it can change independent of those variables and yet still relate to those variables in a similar way." Basically, we are only told a portion of the story here when it comes to change: "However, that will not be the case for long, since the average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy. (emphasis mine)" We are not told about the other rate(s) of increase. What if every single system is increasing?
Sometimes, with flaw questions, it has helped me to ask: is the author presenting evidence in all of its complexity in this stimulus, or is the author giving us a portion of the possible evidence and then drawing a conclusion as if they gave us more evidence than they did?
Hmmm well then maybe it is D...
@TheMikey Actually I reverse everything I've said in light of that. I say D is correct.
@TheMikey @akistotle
These are my 140 cookies...Questions like these are why I am going to get a low ass score on the Sept test.....
Stupid AC E....
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8228/8506301396_ae35744592_b.jpg
Hahaha, sorry guys!
it's all good, because despite all the studying I've done I'm still in for a 120 come gray day
You have confirmed with this question that I have no place doing the LSAT and my Sept score is going to be terrible! (Just kidding...kinda)!!!
Burnt cookies for everyone!
I actually picked E and did not change it during BR. (So I'm writing this parallel question.....) I'm actually glad you picked E too!
P.S. I know that you will get a 175+ on the grey day.
Premise: Your newspaper seems to heavily biased against renewable energy.
Premise: The study presented in the article distorts evidence and shows flawed reasoning. The article states that countries with lower rates of renewable energy had lower average cost of electricity than other countries.
Premise: Since the average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy.
Intermediate conclusion: That will not be the case for long.
Conclusion: The evidence actually supports the view that the use of renewable energy should be increased.
Flaw: Author fails to consider the average cost of electricity in countries with lower rates of renewable energy will still be lower than the average cost of electricity in countries with higher rates of renewable energy; in other words, the average cost of electricity in countries with higher rates of renewable energy could be increasing too.
(A) No; author uses new evidence; wrong.
Because the Letter didn't really address why the study presents distorted evidence and shows flawed reasoning. My mistake here was thinking that second sentence is a conclusion!! This just shows how important it is to ID the conclusion and analyze the argument from there.
(B) This doesn't happen; wrong.
(C) This isn't about what the people want! lol; wrong.
(D) CORRECT.
(E) I picked this originally.
Great explanation!
I think you identified the flaw, but as @TheMikey pointed out, the argument begins after the word "However." So the first three sentences are the context.
• Sub-Premise: The average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy
• Sub-Conclusion/Major-Premise: The fact [countries with lower rates of renewable energy had lower average cost of electricity than other countries] will not be the case for long
• Main-Conclusion: The evidence actually supports the view that the use of renewable energy should be increased.
There are definitely two flaws:
(1) The sub-premise doesn't support the sub-conclusion.
(2) The main-conclusion isn't really supported. (How can s/he conclude that "the use of renewable energy should be increased"?)
(E) does not address the second flaw because the writer of the letter does show some evidence against the viewpoint (The average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy) although it isn't enough.
@akistotle This is a great point. Thank you! TRUE, everything before the "However" is background for the argument. I'm going to be more cognizant of this going forward!
(This reminds me of GOT when Jon Snow is talking about how everything before the word "but" is horseshit). :P
Haha. GOT provides some good LSAT lessons. Have you seen this blogpost by J.Y. (on Game of Thrones and LSAT)?
https://7sage.com/17244-2/