The "Some People Say" Principle [title has been changed!]

Comments

• Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  April 2016 27899 karma

  You're definitely correct that this is almost always how these statements play out. Be careful with "short cuts" though. The important thing is to recognize what it means in context. The author could say, "Some people say x. And good. They're right." There is no real way to know where a statement is going to lead you until you read it through. When you read a stimulus that begins with "some people say," I think it is definitely prudent to proceed with the expectation that the author is probably going to disagree. But that's as far as I'd be comfortable taking it.
• 9 Likes

  Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  April 2016 6869 karma

  Instead of guessing what it's going to say, why not just read it and find out?
• 2 Likes

  runiggyrun Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  April 2016 2481 karma

  I think the danger with this (and most other) shortcuts is twofold: on one hand, it encourages people to look for a magic bullet rather than understand the logic, and on the other hand it exposes them to mistakes of nuance - exactly the sort of mistakes the LSAT writers prey on.
  While it is probably true that for most such "some people say" questions the conclusion will in some way oppose what "the people say", it's not necessarily a direct negation of that statement. If you just go around blindly negating the statement and taking that as a conclusion, you are going to miss those questions.
  I think looking for the actual conclusion takes no more time and is way more accurate than negating the "antithesis" and praying that it is in fact the conclusion.
  In the examples where you do need to straight-up negate what "some people say", the conclusion will clearly state "but that's not true" or "but they are mistaken" or something like that. Once you've identified the conclusion, you parse out the grammar and realize that "That's not true" refers back to "some people say blah blah", so you go ahead and negate what they are saying. In the absence of a correctly identified conclusion making direct reference to the "antithesis" it's very risky to just assume that you are dealing with a straight up negation.
  I do have an example of what I'm talking about (I only looked through the one PT I had open, so I'm sure there are many more examples):
  PT 68.S3Q5 "Some musicians claim they are robbed of royalties by music sharing sites". If you just go ahead and blindly negate, you come to the conclusion that musicians are not robbed of royalties. However, the author goes ahead to concede that musicians are in fact robbed, and the actual conclusion in the argument is that "the sites are not to blame" (because other people shortchange musicians too). The "blame" appeared nowhere in the original statement by the musicians.
  
  
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 75 karma

  Can't_Get_Right, I started off as cautious as you are. I figured these "some people say" statements could just as easily lead to a conclusion of "And they're right" as anything else. But so far I haven't found any such examples. The "some people say" claim has been an ANTITHESIS in every stimulus I have found so far.
  
  Jonathan_Wang, the reason to zero in on "guessing what it's going to say" is that the "antithesis" is a lot more specific than generic evidence. There are only a few arguments that produce a negative outcome: the "modus tolens" argument (A->B, ~B, therefore ~A) and what I call a "conditional counterexample (A, ~B, therefore, ~(A->B)). If every "some people say" stimulus denies the antithesis, you can predict that the evidence will always deny the necessary term. If you are looking for that as soon as you see the "some people say" cue, you should be able to analyze the argument that much faster.
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 edited April 2016 75 karma

  Runniggyrun, thanks for both the counterexample and the caution.
  
  In defense of using the "some people say" rule, I came up with it because some students struggle with the basic task of finding the conclusion. It's not so much a shortcut as a "crutch" for people who can't walk, much less run.
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 edited April 2016 75 karma

  Runniggyrun... in light of the PT68.S3.Q5 example, I'm not so sure I'm ready to concede this as a counterexample. You say "the 'blame' nowhere appeared in the original statement by the musicians." Doesn't the word "rob" connote a moral and/or legal wrong? If we say the music-sharing services "are not to blame," we seem to be saying they did not "rob" the musicians.
  
  This MAY be splitting hairs, but I think the (flawed) argument admits that the musicians are getting less money than they deserve but denies that the music-sharing services are "robbing" them. If I'm right, then your proffered counterexample actually serves to strengthen the "same people say" rule.
• 2 Likes

  runiggyrun Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  April 2016 2481 karma

  @attorneysomerville - you can certainly use "some people say" as a suggestion: if you see "some people say", be on the lookout for a conclusion that is likely to contradict what they say. But I would still very strongly encourage every LSAT student to look for the conclusion in every argument.
  Phrasing it as a helpful reminder rather than a rule would avoid the temptation to adopt a mechanical approach, which would be something especially dangerous for less proficient students, who might not have the wisdom to distinguish when the "rule" they were given doesn't apply.
  
  I understand wanting to help your students, and the fact that they might not be very good at finding conclusions on their own, but I would liken the ability to find the conclusion in an argument for LR purposes with the ability to balance on two wheels for bike riding.
  You can practice pedaling, steering, stopping, signaling and what not on a bike with stabilizers, but regardless of how much and what you practice with stabilizers you will still fall flat on your face and have no use for all that learning until you figure out how to balance your body on two wheels.
  
• 1 Like

  MrSamIam Inactive ⭐

  April 2016 2086 karma

  As a general rule of thumb, arguments that contain a "Some people say" statement or some variant of that, proceed with the author essentially saying, "but those people are wrong" or some variant of that.
  Don't always assume that the author's conclusion will in some way attack what the "some people" are saying. Although that is often the case, it could also be the case that the author disagrees with what these people are saying, but conclusion could have little to do with the prior statement.
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 75 karma

  I love the bicycle analogy. I'm going to use it from now on. Do I owe you royalties?
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 75 karma

  MrSamlam, your point SHOULD be accurate... but in practice, I have found few, if any, actual LSAT stimuli where the conclusion does NOT deny the "antithesis" statement. It makes a certain amount of sense that they wouldn't--LSAT stimuli are a tightly constrained medium, and the LSAT writers don't just throw in random text. The closest I have seen to something that ISN'T a negation of the conclusion is the example Runiggyron found, where the antithesis is "musicians are being robbed" and the conclusion was, "the music-sharing services are not to blame," which may or may not be a denial of the "robbed" claim.
  
• 1 Like

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  April 2016 27899 karma

  Regardless of the analysis on any one given statement, I think the point is, this rule is not theoretically sound. We can use the contrapositive rule, or DeMorgan's law, or modus ponens, etc, as rules because they are logically sound. It is impossible to create a scenario in which they do not work. With whatever frequency this "some people say rule" happens to work, it is not logically sound, and it is thus unreliable as a rule.
  
  That being said, I totally concede that the first thing I always think when I see some version of "some people say" is okay, I bet the author thinks these "some people" are total assholes. This is the case in an overwhelming majority of the LSAT questions I have encountered. And I think you've arrived at a great and advanced realization, and I don't think anyone would argue against that. I think our real problem with this is the standard that must be reached for something to achieve "rule" status. That's a high bar to clear and if a single example exists, if a single example could exist, then it has failed to clear it.
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 75 karma

  Can't_Get_Right, I am simultaneously humbled and flattered by your comment. I couldn't agree more that we need to distinguish between the "laws of logic," which are necessarily and always valid, and empirical observations about LSAT stimuli. No matter how often the "some people say" phenomenon occurs, it always theoretically possible for it NOT to occur, and we need to remember that in the same way that we remember that "A->/B" means A is out, or B is out, or BOTH are out.
  
  I also agree that the word "rule" is too strong for this observation. A "rule" should always apply, without the possibility of an exception. It's more of a "rule of thumb" than a rule, but that's too cumbersome for my purposes.
  
  But leaving aside those weaknesses in my initial presentation, I am flattered humbled by your "great and advanced realization" wording... but I don't disagree. If a "some people say" statement is, in fact, the "antithesis" (as it is in every instance I have observed so far), then it is (a) unusually easy to identify and (b) unusually instructive. The instant you see a "some people say" formulation, you can look for its negation. It you find that in the stimulus, then you have an "antithesis," and (in an unflawed argument) you have a pretty good idea of what evidence you will need to prove the antithesis wrong.
  
  This gets us to another point I haven't seen addressed very often--there are surprisingly few argument structures that are used in "typical" LSAT questions. If the "antithesis" affirms something, then the conclusion will deny it. The most common argument type that produces a simple negative is a modus tolens. If the "anthithesis" states a conditional ("All dogs are mammals," or "if it rains, it pours") then the ONLY argument type that negates that is "A and /B." This means that not only can you spot a "some people say" statement quickly, but you can prephrase the entire argument as soon as you do.
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 edited April 2016 75 karma

  DEEPLY grateful for the all the constructive criticism and counterexamples, folks. I have edited the title of this post (it's a "principle," not a "rule" now).
• attorneysomerville Free Trial Member

  April 2016 75 karma

  PrepTest 63, Section I, Question 8 has an extreme case of "some people say." I won't quote the actual text, since it is copyrighted, but the logic of it is identical to this:
  
  Student complaint: Professor Smith was wrong to say that "climate science deniers" falsely claim that the earth has not gotten hotter over the last eighteen years. He claimed that surface temperature measurements show a steady increase in temperature over time. But satellite measurements, which are not subject to local "hot spots" and other instrumentation problems, do not show an increase in temperature.
  
  Question stem: what is the main point?
  
  (A) The increase in surface temperature measurements does not support the professor's rejection of the "climate science deniers" claim.
  
  This question pushes the "some people say" principle to its limits... but it also shows the value of the principle. This is a case of "some people say that some (other) people say." Despite the exponential complexity of the case, the right answer happens to be exactly what the "some people say" principle would indicate--the correct answer is, in effect, "What some people say that some (other) people say is wrong."
• inactive Alum Member

  April 2016 12637 karma

  @attorneysomerville said:
  PrepTest 63, Section I, Question 8
  

  Wrong question, I think. PT 36.S1.Q08 is about wolves.
  https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-1-question-08