PT28.S1.Q09 - political commentators see recent policies

dcdcdcdcdc · May 2016

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-09/

If this question were a Must Be True type and an answer choice said “Most people think the government policy is not one of appeasement,” would that be something that must be true?

My understanding of the stimulus is that there is some room for the people to disagree with the “assessment” but not necessarily disagree with the conclusion of the political commentators. Furthermore, the author’s conclusion that “this view” is mistaken, seems to suggest that the view of the political commentators is not proper. Assessment and view seem to encompass the idea of reasoning as well as just simply truth value, i.e. a conclusion. All of this is to say that the disagreement might well be over reasoning to reach the conclusion by the political commentators, rather than their conclusion itself.

Reading the stimulus in this way doesn’t prevent the flaw from being described as it is in this flaw question, because it is wrong to use what most people think as a premise in this circumstance.

Just wondering if reading the “this view,” “mistaken,” and “assessment” as leaving room for the issue to be one of reasoning rather than outcome is correct.

Accounts Playable · May 2016

It wouldn't necessarily be true because we don't know about how the poll was conducted. If the poll is assumed to be representative (with a large and varied sample), then I think “Most people think the government policy is not one of appeasement” would be reasonably supported, so it would pass the MSS test. MBT is a much higher standard, however.

As to your second paragraph, I don't think I quite understand the question you're asking, so could you clarify it a bit more? "Assessment" in the argument refers to the political commentator's belief that the government is not appeasing Country X, which is the commentator's conclusion that the argument is designed to refute. So, I don't think there is room to say that a person could disagree with the commentator's "assessment" but not the commentator's conclusion since they are the same thing.

I think there are two key assumptions that someone could attack. First, and what I hinted at earlier, is the lack of information about the poll. Second, and a far worse error in reasoning, is the appeal to the crowd. Let's assume that the poll is in fact a good poll; we still wouldn't know if using the majority vote is a good proxy for truth. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. I think that it's more reasonable to assume that most people in a country aren't very well educated on the ins and outs of foreign policy, so why should we listen to them and not the political commentators (who presumably are experts)?

dcdcdcdcdc · May 2016

Thanks. Good point on the assumption that the poll is representative to begin with. My issue is that assessment can be defined as analysis or consideration, which is the reasoning process, rather than just the conclusion itself.

Accounts Playable · May 2016

I think the part of speech matters here. "Assessment" is used as a noun, as opposed to the verb "to assess." The majority of people disagree over the assessment, meaning that they disagree over the judgment/evaluation that the political commentators have already made. In other words, their problem with the commentators isn't over their reasoning process, but the result (conclusion) from their reasoning process.

If the argument had stated something like "...most people disagree with the way the political commentator's assessed the government's policies..." then I think the reasoning structure of the argument changes. In this alternate question, the error in reasoning is different. Instead of disagreeing with the conclusion of the commentators, they would be disagreeing with the commentator's reasoning process.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

PT28.S1.Q09 - political commentators see recent policies

Comments