2 extremely similar LR Main Conclusion questions with diff answers

paulpyrex

Hey all was reviewing some MC conclusion questions and stumbled upon 2 structurally similar stimuli in exam PT 85 S2 10 and PT 73 S4 11. At a glance they are near identical with a claim endorsed by the author, followed by an opponent view which is then rebutted by the author. I find it hard to distinguish how the MC in 73 would be the rebbutle versus how 85 would say the MC is the original claim up top.

I feel like the answer and difference to this question has to do with how in 85 all premises and such would link back to the first sentence as the main conclusion whereas in 73, the first sentence is unsupported as nothing suggests that the company will develop weaknesses. However, it's kind of challenging to internalize that difference, everyway I view one of them I could easily apply to the other. Wonder what the rest of you guys think.

KevinLuminateLSAT

@paulpyrex One thing you might not have focused on is that in PT73.4.11, the second sentence, which describes the view of other people, refers to the entire first sentence with the language "this problem". So the other people's view is a comment on the problem presented in the first sentence. That's one signal that can help us understand that the first sentence is not the author's point of view that the other people are going against, but a fact that the other people actually agree with. They just have an opinion about the significance of that fact.

Compare that with PT85.2.10. Here, the first sentence is a comment on what created the network of tracks. The next sentence then refers to another explanation for "the tracks". Notice that the researcher's view does not refer to the entirety of the first sentence, unlike with PT73.4.11. And, the second sentence does counter the view in the first sentence.

Here's a comparison of the 2 structures (but note that I've simplified the arguments a bit in a way that doesn't capture them precisely):

PT73.4.11

X is true.
Some people say X isn't important.
But actually X is important.

PT85.2.10

Z is the best explanation for X.
Some people say W is a better explanation for X.
However, here's a reason to think Z makes more sense as the explanation.

paulpyrex

Ah I see this took me a bit to digest it all. Thanks a lot!

I guess the takeaway here could be to look deep into what exactly is being argued since PT73.4.11 now I can see has nothing to do with the truth of the first sentence, and more to do with how X is important, unlike how others suggest (making it the MC). While PT85.2.10 on the other hand is about the truth of the claim in the first sentence so it all comes back to supporting why Z is the best explanation for X.