Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.6K All Categories
- 27.5K LSAT
- 16.7K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 109 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 21 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 599 Technical Problems
- 277 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Flawed question?
Probably more like flawed thinking but I don't get Test 63 S3 Q6 (bus drivers). The correct answer is D but I can think of a scenario where the assumption is not true but the conclusion would still hold. It doesn't seem to me that D is a better choice than C and neither of those choices seem to me to be required. Does anyone else question this one?
Comments
The conclusion is: the best drivers drive best with a supervisor aboard and when they’re alone.
Now, if it wasn’t true that drivers are pretty much all affected in about the same way when they’re being evaluated, the conclusion wouldn’t hold, because that enters the idea into the equation that some drivers get more nervous than others when being watched. The argument assumes that they’re all pretty much equally nervous.
Thanks for the comment. Here is my thinking - say drivers are graded on a scale of 0-100 and there are 3 drivers. Driver A gets a 90 under normal conditions and drivers B and C both get 80s. Now, let's say Driver A drops 10 whopping points to an 80 in the presence of a supervisor while B and C only drop one measly point to 79s. So I would say the assumption didn't happen but the conclusion is still good.
If that happened, then the conclusion wouldn’t hold, because then the examination wouldn’t be a fair representation of their ability (as the argument claims it is). That’s why the assumption is necessary. If the necessary assumption fails (isn’t true), then the conclusion can’t be made.
hmm...I'm still not getting it. Where does the argument claim that it is a fair representation? And why would this matter? It could be fair but that would not affect my example above. I know it's me but I just can't can't figure out where my thinking is going wrong.
lightbulb finally came on, I think. The assumption being true is the only way the argument could be true in every case. I think what was throwing me was answer C - it's still a little unclear to me why that one is wrong.