PT80.S1.Q19 - Politician: Of the candidates running, Thompson

Hamaseh_S

I have some questions about this Q. Some of the information I'm presenting about this question I've only understood after reading forum boards (I don't have access to JYs explanation for this PT) but I still have a question.

Here is some background/how I see the argument:
P: Many people would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.
P: Thompson opposes higher taxes, his opponents support higher taxes
C: Of the ppl running, Thompson will be the best person to lead the nation

So the flaw is an opinion vs. reality flaw; the author presents a view that some people hold and then makes his conclusion based on that opinion.
Therefore the assumption is that either 1) "many people would agree"... these "many people" actually hold the truth which leads me to assumption 2) there is a positive correlation between opposing taxes and being a good leader.

The answer choices I was stuck between:
A) Opposing high taxes isn't a factor contributing to good leadership
b) Being opposed to high taxes isn't sufficient for good leadership

My question:
1) Is the first premise of the argument a comparative statement or a conditional statement?
At first this is how I read it:
Many people would agree [[that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.]]
Conditional: oppose high taxes --> better leader [[subscript - many ppl think this]]

The argument goes on to "satisfy sufficient" and then concludes the necessary condition

But it clearly also reads like a comparative
Many people would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.
So between ppl opposing high taxes vs ppl supporting high taxes, ppl opposing "win" the better leader award lol ...

The confusion I have above (parsing out that statement) is why I have so much trouble still understanding the relationship between the two answer choices. Can someone explain to me, based on the confusion I have above, why A is right and B is wrong. Also, when a comparative also reads like a conditional what do you do??

Thank you, I hope that all made sense! Let me know if you need me to clarify... I'm very in and out with my understanding of this question and would love some help

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-1-question-19/
Admin note: added link

ChaimtheGreat

Hey Hamaseh!

Well for me, I looked at it with the understanding that these are loose conditional statements. (B) says that being opposed to high taxes isn't sufficient to good leadership. But is it necessary? If it was necessary for good leadership that would not significantly weaken the argument as Thompson would have a better chance at being a good leader as he/she has satisfied a necessary condition. Now, if being opposed to high taxes was neither necessary nor sufficient for good leadership then we are in business- we are weakening the argument. So I went for the answer choice that made opposing high taxes a non-factor. Just how I approached it though.

Habeas Porpoise

You can have a comparative statement with a conditional (so it could be both), but I would actually say that the first premise isn't really a conditional statement. Just because people agree something doesn't make it fact, as you point out. If we had instead erased the part that says "many people would agree that," then it would be a conditional statement, and in fact, I believe the entire argument would be valid.

So if we notice that there isn't really a (strict) conditional relationship in the argument, we can see that AC B doesn't do anything. The argument isn't purporting a conditional relationship, so whether being opposed to higher taxes is sufficient to good leadership or not just doesn't play into the argument. Being opposed to higher taxes may not be a sufficient condition, but could still be a contributing factor (which is what the other premise seems to be implying). And like @ChaimtheGreat said, it could be a necessary condition. Who knows.

So in that respect, AC A addresses this implication the author seems to be making about opposing higher taxes somehow being related to/a factor for good leadership. We're basically saying that Thompson being opposed to higher taxes says nothing about his ability to be a good leader, and therefore, this characteristic is not a good enough reason to conclude that Thompson is the best person to lead the nation.

This was a tough question though -- I was also stuck between A and B and did the same as Chaim and went for the one that I believed most effectively denied any sort of relationship.

rpadr007

Seems like a pseudo sufficient assumption type question, or necessary/sufficient rather than basing itself off conditional statements, you'd want to question the relationship between taxes and good leadership. b) Being opposed to high taxes isn't sufficient for good leadership
Displays this relationship, and perhaps the pseudo sufficient is that, opposed to higher taxes is 'necessary' as in it will 'do'. Check out JY's explanation on the CC of this Q type.

AngusMcGillis

I agree with @ChaimtheGreat and @HabeasPorpoise. I just took this PT Aswell, and unfortunately choose b on the timed. I think the premise is both comparative and conditional.

Anyway my thoughts are, B weakens the argument enough that if A wasn't present, it would have been the correct answer. A is just stronger because it basically throws out their entire support. Where b is like, "well you aren't sufficient, but we aren't ruling out your necessity either."

Hamaseh_S

@ChaimtheGreat said:
Hey Hamaseh!

Well for me, I looked at it with the understanding that these are loose conditional statements. (B) says that being opposed to high taxes isn't sufficient to good leadership. But is it necessary? If it was necessary for good leadership that would not significantly weaken the argument as Thompson would have a better chance at being a good leader as he/she has satisfied a necessary condition. Now, if being opposed to high taxes was neither necessary nor sufficient for good leadership then we are in business- we are weakening the argument. So I went for the answer choice that made opposing high taxes a non-factor. Just how I approached it though.

Hi Chaim! So I read this reasoning on a forum somewhere else but I was/am soooo confused... can you explain a little? I just don't understand why the question is "is it necessary". Disregarding the "many people think" thing - our conditional is
oppose taxes --> better leader
T opposes taxes
T will be better leader
This is just the A --> B form right. We know that if we satisfy the sufficient then we satisfy the necessary.
If opposing taxes was the necessary then we would satisfy necessary and then what....

I thiiiiiiiink where I'm going wrong is that it's saying A --> B and then fail A and you're saying well no we would need it to be B --> A and then negate A.

But even if that ^^^ is what you mean I still don't understand how that's a flaw in the answer choice regarding this particular situation. (Like there's the flaw in the stim but then there's the flaw in this AC)

But idk thanks for helping a sis out

Hamaseh_S

@"Habeas Porpoise" said:
The argument isn't purporting a conditional relationship, so whether being opposed to higher taxes is sufficient to good leadership or not just doesn't play into the argument. Being opposed to higher taxes may not be a sufficient condition, but could still be a contributing factor (which is what the other premise seems to be implying). And like @ChaimtheGreat said, it could be a necessary condition. Who knows.

So I think here is where my confusion is. I see the argument explicitly stating opposing higher taxes as a sufficient condition for being a better leader, according to some people.

Wouldn't B weaken that? I totally understand what you're saying about denying a relationship like AC A does but doesn't B deny the conditional?

You said the argument isn't purporting a conditional... do you might explaining how you got that clarification? I took "anyone" and "will" as SC and NC indicators idk

Hamaseh_S

@AngusMcGillis said:
I agree with @ChaimtheGreat and @HabeasPorpoise. I just took this PT Aswell, and unfortunately choose b on the timed. I think the premise is both comparative and conditional.

Anyway my thoughts are, B weakens the argument enough that if A wasn't present, it would have been the correct answer. A is just stronger because it basically throws out their entire support.

Ya that's exactly how I justified choosing A but then I scratched it out and went for B bc I thought A was a trick hahahaha I don't know I guess some questions stick better than others. >

@AngusMcGillis said:

Where b is like, "well you aren't sufficient, but we aren't ruling out your necessity either."

why do I not understand this reasoning SOS

ChaimtheGreat

“Hi Chaim! So I read this reasoning on a forum somewhere else but I was/am soooo confused... can you explain a little? I just don't understand why the question is "is it necessary". Disregarding the "many people think" thing - our conditional is
oppose taxes --> better leader
T opposes taxes
T will be better leader
This is just the A --> B form right. We know that if we satisfy the sufficient then we satisfy the necessary.
If opposing taxes was the necessary then we would satisfy necessary and then what....”

But what if it is better leader —> oppose taxes. We don’t know if it is necessary or not. But if the above conditional is true then there may be some support for opposing taxes being linked with good leadership- it is something necessary for it. (B) only allows us to rule out a sufficient connection so the above conditional could be true. We want to separate good leadership from supporting lower taxes entirely- we want to say it is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition. This is how I would look at it as I looked at it through a pseudo conditional lens. As others have said, one can arrive at the answer without thinking in terms of conditional language as well.

So let’s pretend it is better leader—-> opposing taxes and we satisfy the necessary. We cannot conclude the Thompson is a good leader. But we can conclude that everyone else cannot possibly be a good leader while Thompson could be a good leader. We just don’t know anything about Thompson besides that he/she satisfies this particular necessary condition. That doesn’t weaken the argument to the same degree (A) does. Thompson still could be a great leader while the rivals have no chance. This does not strengthen the argument, but it doesn’t really weaken it either.

Lastly, you are right that the argument phrases the conditional to make opposing taxes sufficient not necessary. But it never rules out that taxes are not also necessary. It could be a biconditional etc. There is an unknown there. (B) attacks the sufficient argument. (A) attacks both the sufficient and then the mystery possibility of a necessary biconditional. (A) is a much heftier weaken.

AngusMcGillis

B is a really strong trap answer choice. Heck, it even has all of us here talking about sufficiency and necessity.

First off I think it's important to address that the real major flaw here is that this argument uses a belief to support a fact.

"P1 Many people believe X
P2 Thompson is X
C Thompson is the best"

A) addresses this well by saying it doesn't matter

This question really has a lot going on, and is designed to knock you off balance.
1. The belief vs fact
2. The sufficiency/necessity rabbit hole
3. and The comparative statement to conclude "best"

@Hamaseh_S said:
@AngusMcGillis said:

Where b is like, "well you aren't sufficient, but we aren't ruling out your necessity either."

why do I not understand this reasoning SOS

I think I was getting off track but what I was trying to get at was, just because A isn't sufficient to cause B, doesn't mean A and B can't still co-exist. So it really does nothing for weakening

ChaimtheGreat

@AngusMcGillis said:
B is a really strong trap answer choice. Heck, it even has all of us here talking about sufficiency and necessity.

First off I think it's important to address that the real major flaw here is that this argument uses a belief to support a fact.

"P1 Many people believe X
P2 Thompson is X
C Thompson is the best"

A) addresses this well by saying it doesn't matter

This question really has a lot going on, and is designed to knock you off balance.
1. The belief vs fact
2. The sufficiency/necessity rabbit hole
3. and The comparative statement to conclude "best"

@Hamaseh_S said:
@AngusMcGillis said:

Where b is like, "well you aren't sufficient, but we aren't ruling out your necessity either."

why do I not understand this reasoning SOS

I think I was getting off track but what I was trying to get at was, just because A isn't sufficient to cause B, doesn't mean A and B can't still co-exist. So it really does nothing for weakening

Your absolutely right this is best served with a belief-fact flaw analysis. Merely saying that if someone did view it as a conditional then they should arrive at (A) as well. Even if you view it as a conditional, (B) does not weaken.