PT91.S4.Q12: Can I get a fresh perspective?

Comments

• AlpineDreams Alum Member

  November 2021 38 karma

  Hi Ashley,

  C uses some sleight of hand wording to make itself seem attractive. The first sentence is a principle which the author uses to make his conclusion given the example (people being presumably more aware of water pollution when compared to 'ozone'). The principle is not used to explain why the public is aware of the severity of the problem (that fact is a given), it is only used to support the conclusion that since people are more aware of the contaminated water than the threat of 'ozone', there probably won't be any efforts to rein the air pollutant in.

  B is perfect. The principle is a premise that supports the conclusion.

  Let me know if this answered your question!
• 1 Like

  Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 2249 karma

  @"declan.pollard" said:
  Hi Ashley,

  C uses some sleight of hand wording to make itself seem attractive. The first sentence is a principle which the author uses to make his conclusion given the example (people being presumably more aware of water pollution when compared to 'ozone'). The principle is not used to explain why the public is aware of the severity of the problem (that fact is a given), it is only used to support the conclusion that since people are more aware of the contaminated water than the threat of 'ozone', there probably won't be any efforts to rein the air pollutant in.

  B is perfect. The principle is a premise that supports the conclusion.

  Let me know if this answered your question!

  But by itself the first sentence can’t support the conclusion right? Isn’t it the first sentence plus the second together? Ok, so the public being more concerned about the water than pollution is an example of the first sentence?

  It just sounds nice as a premise though. Why did the public respond strongly to the water contamination and not the pollution even though both problems are arguably just as serious? Because the public generally cares about obvious issues
• AlpineDreams Alum Member

  November 2021 38 karma

  You're right, by itself it doesn't support the conclusion. However, that doesn't mean it's can't be a premise that supports the conclusion.

  Example was probably the wrong word for me to use. It's the situation at hand.

  It just sounds nice as a premise though. Why did the public respond strongly to the water contamination and not the pollution even though both problems are arguably just as serious? Because the public generally cares about obvious issues

  You can look at it like that, but you're missing what the question is asking you. What role does the first sentence play in the argument? It supports the conclusion that there won't be any grassroots effort for more stringent controls on air pollution. The author is not trying to explain why there is more "awareness" for contaminated water than there is for air pollution. That's just stated in the stimulus as a premise.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 2249 karma

  After reading the second sentence I was wondering why the public was only concerned about the water contamination and not the ozone issue and the way the stimulus was written it seemed to me the first sentence was to explain the discrepancy. Otherwise how do we explain why the public chose to pay attention to the water over the oozone? the part that confuses me the most is how am I supposed to interpret "most obvious public health problem?" Is that supposed to be referring to the water contamination?

  I still feel that B and C both work.

  B: Why is it the case that the argument states there is unlikely to be a grassroots movement for more restrictive air pollution controls?

  Premises: People only care about the most obvious problems and people are currently most concerned about water contamination and not air pollution.

  C: Why is it that people care about water contamination and not air pollution? Because people care only about the most obvious problems. I guess I have to assume water is more obvious of a problem than air pollution but I don't see anything wrong with that.

  And now that you mention it, I also think the second sentence works as an example of the first.
• 1 Like

  AlpineDreams Alum Member

  November 2021 38 karma

  I think you're conflating the concepts of awareness and concern in this stimulus. The second sentence only mentions that the public is more aware of the severity of the threat of water contamination when compared to the threat of Ozone air pollution.

  Being aware about a threat is not the same as being concerned about a threat. I can be aware of the severity of the threat that global warming poses for our species, but I can also be unconcerned about that threat (maybe I think I'll be long dead before that threat becomes a material danger).

  We don't need to explain why the public is more aware of the severe threat water contamination poses when compared to air pollution. That's just stated by the author for us.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 2249 karma

  @"declan.pollard" said:
  I think you're conflating the concepts of awareness and concern in this stimulus. The second sentence only mentions that the public is more aware of the severity of the threat of water contamination when compared to the threat of Ozone air pollution.

  Being aware about a threat is not the same as being concerned about a threat. I can be aware of the severity of the threat that global warming poses for our species, but I can also be unconcerned about that threat (maybe I think I'll be long dead before that threat becomes a material danger).

  We don't need to explain why the public is more aware of the severe threat water contamination poses when compared to air pollution. That's just stated by the author for us.

  So both are needed to support the conclusion but they don’t support each other? Isn’t the first sentence a principle? Well I guess it can be true but if you register something as a threat I’d assume you’re concerned about it because if you weren’t then it wouldn’t be a threat right?
• AlpineDreams Alum Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 38 karma

  Correct, both are needed for the conclusion to be supported, but the premises do not support each other. The first sentence is something I'd define as a principle, or if that is too strong, a statement the author holds to be true.

  Not necessarily. You can be aware of a threat without being concerned about it. I'm aware, and I consciously register, the threat the street poses to me on a daily basis. Tomorrow I could be hit by a bus, but am I concerned about it? No, not really. I cross the street safely everyday, so why should tomorrow be any different?

  That's just an example, but the point stands. You can understand a threat to yourself without being concerned about it.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 2249 karma

  @"declan.pollard" said:
  Correct, both are needed for the conclusion to be supported, but the premises do not support each other. The first sentence is something I'd define as a principle, or if that is too strong, a statement the author holds to be true.

  Not necessarily. You can be aware of a threat without being concerned about it. I'm aware, and I consciously register, the threat the street poses to me on a daily basis. Tomorrow I could be hit by a bus, but am I concerned about it? No, not really. I cross the street safely everyday, so why should tomorrow be any different?

  That's just an example, but the point stands. You can understand a threat to yourself without being concerned about it.

  The problem is I feel that it can work either way
  I’m not sure if that’s meant to be seen as a “gap” or if it’s one of those connections the LSAT expects you to make.
• AlpineDreams Alum Member

  November 2021 38 karma

  It's definitely a gap that the LSAT expects you to notice, and assuming otherwise is falling for the trap they've laid for you.

  You can also look at this conditionally. You're assuming 'aware of threat threat' --> 'concern'. I've given you two reasonable, real-world examples of 'aware of threat' and 'concern', and there are many more to be made. That conditional statement isn't valid and you therefore can't say that if you're aware of a threat then you must automatically be concerned about it.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 2249 karma

  @"declan.pollard" said:
  It's definitely a gap that the LSAT expects you to notice, and assuming otherwise is falling for the trap they've laid for you.

  You can also look at this conditionally. You're assuming 'aware of threat threat' --> 'concern'. I've given you two reasonable, real-world examples of 'aware of threat' and 'concern', and there are many more to be made. That conditional statement isn't valid and you therefore can't say that if you're aware of a threat then you must automatically be concerned about it.

  7sage really needs to come out with an explanation. If that gap does even exist then why do the premises work together to support the conclusion?

  Yeah let’s not go for conditionals because then I think we are truly over complicating things.