Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
PT61.S2.Q08 - not all vegetarian diets
mitrakhanom1
Member
I understand now that the answer is A, but I am having a difficult time seeing why B is wrong. Answer Choice B says Theodora is ignoring the research cited by Marcia. Which I agree with since Theodora mentions people loosing their jobs in the meat industry and can't afford nutritional diets due to people becoming vegetarians. This shows Theodora ignoring Marcia's claim from the research.
I got confused because I feel there are two separate ideas being discussed. The first idea is in the first sentence in Marcia's argument and the first sentence in Theodora's argument. Which talks about whether vegetarian diet lead to nutritional deficiencies or not. Then there is the second idea, which is the second sentence in Marcia's argument and the second sentence in Theodora's which is lengthier. Marcia's second argument is vegetarians can get nourishment from nonanimal foods. Theodora argues by ignoring Marcia's research and claiming something else. Theodora gives the example of the people loosing their jobs and not affording nutritional diets. Since the second idea from both women's second sentences was lengthier from Theodora's argument I felt that was more important and chose answer choice B. How should I have approached this problem? I fail to see how the strength of the language in Theodora's first sentence vs Marcia's first sentence can be lead to the analysis and picking of answer choice A.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-08/
I got confused because I feel there are two separate ideas being discussed. The first idea is in the first sentence in Marcia's argument and the first sentence in Theodora's argument. Which talks about whether vegetarian diet lead to nutritional deficiencies or not. Then there is the second idea, which is the second sentence in Marcia's argument and the second sentence in Theodora's which is lengthier. Marcia's second argument is vegetarians can get nourishment from nonanimal foods. Theodora argues by ignoring Marcia's research and claiming something else. Theodora gives the example of the people loosing their jobs and not affording nutritional diets. Since the second idea from both women's second sentences was lengthier from Theodora's argument I felt that was more important and chose answer choice B. How should I have approached this problem? I fail to see how the strength of the language in Theodora's first sentence vs Marcia's first sentence can be lead to the analysis and picking of answer choice A.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-08/
Comments
I believe that B is wrong because it doesn't address the flaw in T's argument. Answer choice B is certainly factually true since T does not implicitly nor explicitly mention the study cited by M. However, that isn't grounds to weaken the argument. In fact, I am not so sure that B is even a flaw type.
Think of this example for eliminating B:
David: I think the Sun revolves around the Earth. I think this because my research says so.
Galileo: No. The Earth revolves around the Sun. I believe this because I have used my telescope to observe this fact.
Galileo didn't address David's research (premise), but that isn't a reason to weaken his argument. It's OK to make a counter argument and not address the research/studies of the other person's argument if your counterargument isn't dependent on the first person's argument. However, if you are going to critique another person's argument, you must not characterize the argument you are critiquing. Thus, you can eliminate B for that reason.
Hope this helps!
Thank you for responding. I'm not clear on what you mean:
"It's OK to make a counter argument and not address the research/studies of the other person's argument if your counterargument isn't dependent on the first person's argument. However, if you are going to critique another person's argument, you must not characterize the argument you are critiquing. Thus, you can eliminate B for that reason."
Yeah, I wrote this before bed, and I did a pretty bad job explaining my thought process.
What I meant to get across was the idea that you don't need to address the premise or evidence of the other person if you are making a counterargument. A good counterargument attacks the relationship between the other person's premise and conclusion. Answer B, if anything, is simply trying to state that T didn't address one of M's premises. That isn't very relevant in the analysis of T's argument.
Hope that clears it up!