PT72.S3.Q6 - gamma ray bursts

TheDeterminedCTheDeterminedC Member
edited April 2019 in Logical Reasoning 1025 karma

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-06/

I am having such a tough time on this question. I have written out my thinking, watched the explanation a few times and I am still stumped by this question. Answer C is giving me trouble.

The goal here is to support the author's conclusion that the duration being long and everything else being short is not enough to classify the unusual GRB dichotomously. Two assumptions are being made here: 1) that the long duration is not enough to classify it as long, and 2) having almost everything short is not enough to classify it as short.

With B, I can clearly see now that this answer denies assumption #1. The duration being long would sometimes allow one to classify it as such. This would weaken the argument.

However, C states that ONE instance of a "long" property is less important than other "short" properties.. Wouldn't this deny the assumption #2? If one out of all the number of properties is a long duration and this duration is not as important as those short ones, then why would this answer help the conclusion? By explaining that duration is lower in importance along with the fact that it's severely outnumbered by short properties, the answer seems like it's implying that a "short" classification would be more fitting for this GRB. I do see the words "more important," but a short property that is important surly is more important than a long property that is low/not important.

Any thoughts on this question would be extremely helpful, thank you.

Comments

  • BlindReviewerBlindReviewer Alum Member
    855 karma

    I think you may be overthinking things when it comes to precedence of properties regarding long/short/duration etc. A key factor of this stimulus is the way referential phrasing works with " descriptive labels of short/long." It's referring to their current definitions as resting solely on duration of the gamma rays. The conclusion is saying that these definitions -- based on length of the gamma ray -- is now useless. Why? Because we found a ray that is long in duration but has properties of a short ray.

    The assumption here (and I thought this felt more like a NA question) is that if defining the rays in terms of duration is useless, as the conclusion says, then it must be because these other properties are at least in some way more important to our understanding of the rays than length. A is out of scope; B makes me ask, so what? this doesn't help our argument; D is similar to B, in that sure this can be true, but what does this tell me about whether or not my definitions based on long/short are useful or not?; E I think is kind of attractive because it talks about labels and feels within scope, but I think it's just designed to make you think that way -- E doesn't tell us anything other than the fact that we could change the definition terms for other terms, but that tells me nothing about why finding a ray with conflicting duration/other properties all of sudden makes my definitions based on length invalid.

  • JuandaSheepJuandaSheep Alum Member
    42 karma

    I disagree with your interpretation of the author's conclusion: "the duration being long and everything else being short is not enough to classify the unusual GRB dichotomously."

    The author's conclusion is that the traditional classification system is not useful to reflect/describe all GRB phenomena anymore.

    Note that there are three similar words here in the stimulus: "classified as either 'long' or 'short'", "reflect the explosion" and "descriptive labels."

    The author doesn't say the traditional labeling system "is not enough to classify the unusual GRB dichotomously." If we take your wording "classify...dichotomously" to mean "sort into either 'long' or 'short' categories," of course it still can! Under the traditional labeling system, this new GRB will be classified as a long GRB to reflect its duration. Problem solved. Borrowing your language: The duration being long is enough... at least under the traditional system.

    The author is unhappy with it. Why? The author thinks that the "descriptive labels" have "outlived their usefulness." What are some of the author's assumptions? Well, there has to be no problem with this new GRB as counterevidence, that's one. More relevant to our purpose, perhaps, is that: A useful system should be able to reflect more than just the durations of all discovered GRBs. Let's try to use Lawgic:

    Useful system -> reflect more properties of the GRBs than their durations

    Author's argument:
    Traditional labeling system now reflects just the duration property of the GRBs (i.e. negating the necessary condition above) -> traditional labeling system sucks is no longer useful

    Let's go back to the answer choices:
    C) Properties other than duration are more important than duration in the proper classification of the unusual GRB.

    This is even stronger than the assumption I just anticipated. But, yeah, if the other properties are even more important than duration, of course a proper/useful classification should reflect that. This would make the traditional system seem even less useful. If this is assumed, the astrologist's argument would be more strongly supported.

  • Michael.CincoMichael.Cinco Member Sage ⭐
    2116 karma

    As juanda has already said you may want to review what the conclusion of the argument is.

  • TheDeterminedCTheDeterminedC Member
    edited April 2019 1025 karma

    @BlindReviewer @JuandaSheep @"Michael.Cinco" Thank you all so much for this. I couldn't understand this myself and, as you all pointed out, the reason was because I had a faulty understanding of the conclusion. It's quite frightening yet refreshingly humbling to be reminded of how easy it is to interpret the argument incorrectly and run with it. I am so happy it was pointed out that the duration was the only term being described for classification in the context of the stimulus. Knowing that this is the case, it changes the meaning of the entire argument. Somehow I managed to skip over this critical information a number of times. Luckily, I have you all to knock some sense back into me :)!

    The question seems so simple now. Thank you all for helping me get there, I appreciate it more than you know.

Sign In or Register to comment.