PT27.S1.Q18 - astronauts who experience

Henry An

I am having a difficult time trying to organize when and where the terms "some," "many," or "sometimes" can be used correctly or not, and this question came across my mind. Would my line of reasoning be correct if answer choices B, C, and E be wrong (not strengthen the argument) even if the wording of the answer choices be changed to corroborate the argument in the stimulus while leaving the words "some" and "many" intact? Would the answer choices be wrong simply because of "many" and "some"?

For instance, if we were to change C to read: Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are *not* moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness

would this answer choice still not strengthen the argument? In other words, if the argument in the stimulus stated "We hypothesize that A -> B," and an answer choice stated "some A-> B," would the answer choice strengthen the argument?

Usually whenever I see "some" or "many" I become very cautious... now I'm having real difficulty in finding how "some" or "many" can be used correctly to become the correct answer choice... Any help would be great!
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-1-question-18/

sarahmelton6

if we were to change C to read: Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are *not* moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness

If the passengers were not moving then they would not be passing by objects. I suppose the passengers could be sitting in a parked car and other objects could be passing by them, but the inner ear would still indicate that the passenger is not moving when in fact they are not moving. So there is no conflicting information from the brain if the passenger is not moving and the inner ear indicates that they are not moving. We need to strengthen the idea that conflicting information from the brain about a person's motion is what causes motion sickness.

Answer choice A strengthens this hypothesis because a passenger in a ship's cabin that provides no view can not see objects passing by, and can not determine their motion relative to other objects passing by. This passenger is less likely to get motion sickness because there is less conflicting information about their motion and another object's motion.

I think it's good to be cautious when you see the words "some" or "many" but to also be focused on the task that the question stem provides, which is to zero in on the concept of conflicting information about motion affecting one's brain and causing motion sickness.

Giant Panda

I will give a shot at this.

Different question sets calls up different skill. I really really really don't like to draw out a logic map whenever I don't need too because that will just cost me time. As such, I only am prepare to draw out maps when I am in MBT or parallel territory. I likewise recommend that you do the same thing here.

What I see here is a problem that I once had. The difficulty with it is of reading the argument. Unlike the more traditional type of strengthening/Weakening/SA/PSA, where the gap exist in between the way of how the premise and conclusion is connected, in this case, the conclusion itself is everything.

In fact, whenever I see this, I sort of solve it like a super easy L1 parallel reasoning problem. So there is a "principle" that says motion sickness caused by conflicting of information, now to strengthen it, you just find an additional case that matches with this principle, which is exactly what A did. (and btw, I agree with your analysis for choice C).

To help you even further, here is a problem that is of the exact same structure: PT33-S3-Q9. I mean by same, like really, the same!

Take a look.

While, of course, to answer another question that you may have which is then how do you identify these sub strengthening & parallel question? It is easy. Because the premises and conclusions don't connect. The subject matter just jumps.

For instance, in the question you raised, it jumped form monkey in the air to a law. And if you read the question that I recommended to you, it jumped for older people to social policies.

Just don't get distracted. Be focused and apply the correct tool then you will get it.

best of luck

Panda (Chinese Panda)

Giant Panda

And here is another one: https://7sage.com/lesson/plastic-trash-strengthen-question/?ss_completed_lesson=974

Pretty much the same form if you notice as the previous 2. You can see my comment below the video for my analysis.

Happy Weekend! (While weekend in China

Panda (a Chinese speaking Panda)