PT67.S2.Q13 - Although most builders do not consider

nathanieljschwartznathanieljschwartz Alum Member
edited April 2018 in Logical Reasoning 1723 karma

I wanted to get the community's concensus on this question.

[A] after an intense BR is wrong, i beleive, bc the proponents of papercrete dont ever claim that its promising for small scale projects. They just beleive its promising for large builidings. Thoughts?

Admin note: edited title for formatting

Comments

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8711 karma

    I think there is a ton to be said about this question. It is very rare that I would be disappointed in the structure of an LR question, but I really dislike 67-2-13. Essentially, you are correct, the reason for eliminating (A) is the one you mentioned. The argument subtly attributes a belief to those that use the papercrete that they do not hold literally.

    What I believe teeters on unreasonable for this question is that I believe there is a bit of unreasonable mental contortion required here. Namely, at the very least, we have to leave open the possibility that this group of builders: who think papercrete is suitable for large scale project and work with papercrete on small scale projects, actually don't hold the belief that papercrete is suitable for small scale projects. This is, by any standard I can think of, is nonsense. I mean, we have to make a choice on what their belief is: they are recommending the product for large scale and work on it for small scale, does that imply they think it is suitable for small scale or does it imply that it does not? I think it would be totally unreasonable to state that that fact pattern says they don't think that the material is suitable for small scale projects.

    Are we to leave open the possibility of this combination:
    -The small scale builders use papercrete for small scale building
    -the small scale builders think papercrete is suitable for large scale building
    butttttt it is possible they don't think papercrete is suitable for small scale building.
    This begs the question: why is the group of builders using the papercrete on small scale projects then?

    So, evidently the reasoning is written in such a way to leave open the possibility that the small scale builders don't think papercrete is promising for small scale projects? They are just using it...with a lack of promise in its potential for small scale building, and then recommending that it is promising for large scale projects.

    I'm totally open for correction here. My BR group usually points out something I haven't considered.

    My final point, I hesitated about writing this, but I think a question like this plays to the stereotypical negative qualities of lawyers: the manipulation of words.

    End of rant lol!

    I hope this helps
    David

  • nathanieljschwartznathanieljschwartz Alum Member
    1723 karma

    @BinghamtonDave as always your insights are much appreciated. I agree with you about being disappointed with this question. Throughout my lsat journey i have become sensitive to what assumptions the test allows for. And i have run into questions that would clearly allow this sort of assumption. But then in this question it hinges on not allowing that assumption. Either way. Its a good learning point even though i dont think there is another question this nitpicky. Thank you

  • olepuebloolepueblo Alum Member
    235 karma

    Think this question is doable if you focus on the premise-conclusion relationship and not get bogged down in the context. I see only one premise (statement about familiarity) and the conclusion (promising). My initial reaction to the last sentence is: “what about those that do not regularly use papercrete? Are they familiar with its properties?” My thought is then that they could be familiar and still choose not to use it...

    Taking a stab at an analogy:
    Since those who regularly research the Illuminati are familiar with its properties, it is the case that (insert opinion of group that regularly does something) Beyoncé is its leader.

    Well, what about those that don’t regularly research the Illuminati? Maybe the broad group of historians/cult researchers don’t regularly research the Illuminati because it’s obvious that blue ivy is its leader and its activities are juvenile.

    The idea is that regularly doing something doesn’t necessarily translate into being the authority on that thing.

    Also, it never says that those who regularly use papercrete are MOST familiar with its properties. I think if they used “most” it would lend more credence to AC A.

    -swam

Sign In or Register to comment.