PT57.S2.Q11 - e-mail fosters anonymity

ikethelsat

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-11/

Can anyone help me with these types of questions? It is consistently one of these types that is the only LR question I get wrong, and I haven't been able to find a system to really figure out what they want. I always have it down to two possible answers - how do I know exactly what they want? Time is not an issue, I just need a method.

elliottcovert

I also find disagree questions to be the most difficult. Here's my analysis, make of it what you will:

Let's examine why the right answer was correct by taking stock of what we know: we know from Amar's statement that he thinks that direct personal contact is a necessary condition of real social bonds and therefore a necessary condition for intimacy, so email alone cannot create intimacy in the first place because it would fail to meet the necessary criterion of direct personal contact. We know from Pat's response that he thinks that self-revelation fostered by anonymity could create a sense of intimacy between two people that would take years of direct personal contact to foster. He therefore thinks that it is possible for two people who communicate solely by e-mail to develop a sense of intimacy -- heck, he actually thinks that email-only communication could possibly create intimacy, but that it would actually help speed up the process! He clearly does not think that direct personal contact is a necessary condition for intimacy. Pat and Amar therefore have to disagree over whether or not intimacy is possible solely by email.

Now let's look at why the wrong answer is incorrect. Do our speakers HAVE TO disagree about whether or not emails between friends can increase intimacy? (remember also that they could agree that email DOES NOT increase intimacy between friends -- the are still in agreement on the subject even though they have negated the position.) It seems to me that both parties could either affirm, negate, or be agnostic on this subject, because there's nothing that I can detect in either one's stated position that compels him towards taking any stance on that matter. Amar could agree that though e-mail only contact cannot create intimacy, perhaps emails between existing friends could increase intimacy -- or perhaps not. At this point alone we know enough to know that they don't HAVE TO disagree about the subject, since one of the parties could go either way. Furthermore, the incorrect answer choice says "emails can increase intimacy between friends" but we know nothing about friends as a subset of all email senders based on either Frank or Amar's statements. This introduces a claim about a specific subset of email senders that the stimulus didn't tell us about, so it's hard to see how they would have to disagree about it.

Here's a method I use for disagree questions when the going gets tough: First, look at an answer choice and ask yourself if both parties HAVE TO have a position on it one way or another. You can eliminate any answer choices in which at least one speaker does not have to take a position on the answer choice either way based on their statement. Once you've done that, look at the remaining answer choices and decide if the statement made by each speaker puts them in agreement on the issue. Eliminate those, because our question is about disagreement. Your remaining answer will be the correct response.

Sorry about the long post, but sometimes I find it helps to think this stuff out, perhaps beyond what is necessary.

ikethelsat

No, I really appreciate you taking the time to write it all out. It makes absolute sense - and to be honest, I should have spotted the word 'friends' as well - the LSAT always does that where there is a subtle difference in the set of things being referred to that colloquially would slip by unnoticed by I need to see as not quite correct.

Thanks!