PT39.S2.Q12 - it is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals

mj787900

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-12/
hello, I just want to make sure weather my reasoning was right.

It was infer question type.
summing the stimulus, it says A-> wrong.

but in the right answer choice, it says A is not right.

clearly, in my opinion, not right is not equal to wrong.

It is okay to say not right for wrong in 'infer' question type? or it is neglected because other four choices are utterly wrong.

I want to type the whole stimulus, but I'm not sure it is okay to put up an actual question here..

please help me,, many thanks!!

nicole.hopkins

EXCELLENT. Question.

1) I have seen Q's where 4 choices are 100% wrong and the correct AC uses "inefficient" whereas stimulus said "not efficient."
2) After laboring over whether "inefficient" was an admissible "small leap" (LSAT Trainer pg. 465), it became clear that this question was an instance of "which of the five answers is the most provable" being at issue: "must be true, or is closest to being proven true" (Ibid 464).
3) As you can tell, that explicit distinction of must be true/most provable from the Trainer has really stuck with me and I think is what differentiates some questions that ask for "what can be properly inferred" versus "what must be true." A very slight difference in stem, and one that indicates a very very slight wiggle may be permissible.

This is a perfect example of the smallness of the leap allowed for Inf/MbT Q's and I applaud your diligence/rigor in dissecting it in this way, and in highlighting it for others.

I don't have a recording of JY's voice in my head for this QT, but I am sure he also covers the small wiggly allowance in 7sage.

Jonathan Wang

Right/wrong seems pretty binary to me. If you're not right, it's accurate to categorize you as wrong. What is your reasoning for saying that 'clearly' the two concepts are not equivalent?

Jonathan Wang

@nicole.hopkins Disagree. Right and wrong are defined in direct opposition to each other - the lack of one is proof of the other. There is no difference between being 'not wrong' and 'right', because if you are not wrong then what else is there to call you but right? Being right is literally defined as the absence of wrongness.

EDIT: I misread the example. "In-" as a prefix simply means "not". Inefficient means 'not efficient', in the same way that 'invalid' means 'not valid', 'indestructible' means 'not destructible', and so forth. There's no leap required.

It's the same with things like open/closed and valid/invalid, versus things like good/bad and black/white. The former group is purely binary, whereas the latter is not. You wouldn't quibble with the fact that a door that is 'not open' is closed, even though you'd definitely take issue with someone being 'not good' at chess to mean that they're 'bad' at chess.

nicole.hopkins

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
EDIT: I misread the example. "In-" as a prefix simply means "not". Inefficient means 'not efficient', in the same way that 'invalid' means 'not valid', 'indestructible' means 'not destructible', and so forth. There's no leap required.

As far as "in-" unequivocally meaning "not": sure, in one sense that might be clear. But do you see why I might not have seen that as a "purely binary" difference, per this quickly Googled definition of the prefix "in"?

The prefix in, which means “in, on, or not,” appears in numerous English vocabulary words, for example: inject, influx, and insane. Prefixes do tend to have different meanings, which can be divined by context, common sense, and the process of elimination.

The AC said "not efficient" whereas stimulus said "inefficient": given that inefficient is independently (of "not efficient") used as an adjective, I was wary of this being one of those tricks where LSAC tempts us to use our common ways of speaking to trip us into territory that is not so clear cut. Indeed, "not efficient" and "inefficient" were appropriate pairings (and thus a correct AC). And of course, given context, yes, "in" in "inefficient" means not. But in the heat of the moment ... Well, this is clear now at least!!

Was there a list of definitive LSAT definitions of the exact meanings of prefixes, etc. that I missed somewhere in 7sage? Would love to lay eyes on such a list.

My argument was that at the very *most* a "very very" small leap is required (as allowed) if one is not 100% certain of the exact meaning of a given prefix, i.e. whether it unequivocally indicates "not" versus other uses of said prefix in other contexts, for purposes of confirming this as the right answer choice. Certainly a correct AC must, at the very least, be "most provable." Unless we have an unimpeachable sense of all nuances in all words on the LSAT, sometimes such a difference in prefix versus explicit negation might entail an infinitesimal leap, at least from the perspective of the test taker.

I see that your point (beginning "Disagree") was retracted due to misreading my example, but allow me to ask you this: is there not a sense in which "not wrong" means simply "neutral" and not unequivocally "right"?

Here's what I'm going off of, per JY:

When we say “negation”... we mean something very specific. What we mean is the contradiction. The logical opposite. What we mean is “it’s not the case that…”
[...] On the LSAT, the rule of thumb is to assume that they’re talking about contradiction.
[...] Do not confuse this notion of contradiction with your ordinary understanding of opposition.

I think we would all benefit from a list of which terms are identified as being definitive binaries/negations and which terms are not.

mj787900

Thanks for all your contributions.

I'm still not clear on that 'wrong' and 'right' are binary terms, but at the same time, I can only vaguely come up with something what is neither wrong nor right.

btw, in the explanation, JY said not right = wrong. so I will just have to stick to not right=wrong.

second to @nicole.hopkins.. I'm also confused with some terms weather they are binary cut or not.