Curvebreaker PSA Question Explanation

g00g00sh

Hello fellow December test-takers! I'm brushing up on PSA questions for this Saturday, and I came across a question that I think is an excellent learning opportunity in regards to domains and precision within the wider scope of tackling LSAT arguments that deal with assumptions. Below I offer my explanation of the question, PT68 S3 Q02, (link to JY's explanation: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-12/) and a link to another question with a similar layout of argument and trap answer choices.

I’ve noticed that PSA questions that are “curvebreaker” level difficulty often have a very tempting trap answer that exactly mimics what you would formulate as your pre-phrase, and the right answer uses more veiled or sideways language that requires you to stop and think about the argument for a second. An analogous PSA question is PT 67 S4Q08, regarding burden of policy changes and salt on roads. Link: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-4-question-08/

For the parsley question, a general pre-phrase would go something along the lines of,

“If you have two varieties (V) of a cooking ingredient, and one is LESS GOOD on two particular qualities (T and H), NEVER use the worse variety.”

Note that the reasoning never tells us what variety we SHOULD use, only what we should not; and that it’s a comparative statement, not absolute.

But here’s where the curvebreaker feature of a PSA question comes in: PRECISION. Especially, precision in relation to which domain of item the argument is referring to. The trap answer will use all the keywords that sound appealing to you, so if you aren’t reading carefully, you might just think you lucked out on prephrasing the answer, choose it quickly, and move on.
But WAIT: D is a trap because it is out of the proper domain of the argument, so it’s useless to justify our conclusion. D tells us that we shouldn’t use V that have no T and H. But that doesn’t apply to dried parsley: all we know is that it has LESS T and H than fresh parsley. It’s an unwarranted assumption to say that it has no T and H at all.

B, on the other hand, seems at first to not be substantial enough to justify the argument, and it doesn't use all of the matching keywords from the argument; but remember, we’re laying out a sufficient condition (Pseudo SUFFICIENT assumption), so if an AC points the precise premise to the precise conclusion in a pretty much airtight way, then we have a winner. And B definitely does this, because it correctly references the COMPARATIVE quality of the argument, and tells us to not use the lesser T & H Variety.

My takeaway: be concise when figuring out what the conclusion of the argument is, and make sure on PSAs that your correct answer is connecting the premises to THAT conclusion, and not just repeating words from the stimulus. With a clearer understanding of what the conclusion of the argument is, you'll be able to solve all assumption questions more quickly and with increased confidence.

BinghamtonDave

Excellent work on getting to the core of the arguments here.