Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K 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
- 7 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
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
PT69.S4.Q15 - philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language
Accounts Playable
Live Sage ⭐
This was pretty tricky, and I got it right, but I still don’t have a good understanding of what is technically wrong with A. How is answer choice A not directly contradicting one of P’s premises? It must not because it isn’t the right answer choice.
Video link: http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-15/
L: You philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language, but you haven’t provided evidence of that.
P: You say that “J and I are siblings” means the same thing as “I and J are siblings.” This isn’t true since the word order is different. For two things to be identical, everything must be the same.
What I am looking for: Both make pretty bad arguments (L makes an absence of evidence flaw), but we really only need to undermine P’s reasoning. P is wrong because he misses the point of what it means to “understand language.” The order of the words doesn’t matter necessarily; it’s the total meaning that matters. P assumes that “identical meaning” is influenced by the “physical” placement of the words.
Answer A: To me, this is attacking one of P’s premises directly (and that was one of the reasons I didn’t pick this one). Attacking the premise is technically an OK way to undermine an argument; the real issue is that the LSAT is very good at creating answer choices that SEEM to attack premises, but they really don’t. This one is different in my mind since it flat out contradicts the final independent clause of P's fact pattern. P defines “identical things” as “things having all of the same attributes.” If L responded, “I disagree with your definition since two things can have a few minor differences and be identical [referring to minor differences in physical structure, but identical meaning]” doesn’t this weaken the argument by directly attacking the truth of P's premise?
Answer B: I think this strengthens P’s argument since it provides another way that differences (context) matter.
Answer C: Wtf?
Answer
This more succinctly hits the main point, and it is a much better answer choice that A. The issue is over “meaning," not the order of the words.
Answer E: More experience? So what?
Video link: http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-15/
L: You philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language, but you haven’t provided evidence of that.
P: You say that “J and I are siblings” means the same thing as “I and J are siblings.” This isn’t true since the word order is different. For two things to be identical, everything must be the same.
What I am looking for: Both make pretty bad arguments (L makes an absence of evidence flaw), but we really only need to undermine P’s reasoning. P is wrong because he misses the point of what it means to “understand language.” The order of the words doesn’t matter necessarily; it’s the total meaning that matters. P assumes that “identical meaning” is influenced by the “physical” placement of the words.
Answer A: To me, this is attacking one of P’s premises directly (and that was one of the reasons I didn’t pick this one). Attacking the premise is technically an OK way to undermine an argument; the real issue is that the LSAT is very good at creating answer choices that SEEM to attack premises, but they really don’t. This one is different in my mind since it flat out contradicts the final independent clause of P's fact pattern. P defines “identical things” as “things having all of the same attributes.” If L responded, “I disagree with your definition since two things can have a few minor differences and be identical [referring to minor differences in physical structure, but identical meaning]” doesn’t this weaken the argument by directly attacking the truth of P's premise?
Answer B: I think this strengthens P’s argument since it provides another way that differences (context) matter.
Answer C: Wtf?
Answer
This more succinctly hits the main point, and it is a much better answer choice that A. The issue is over “meaning," not the order of the words.Answer E: More experience? So what?