Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Question on Strengthening Questions

ccj0321ccj0321 Alum Member
edited August 2014 in General 66 karma
Mr. Ping said that to strengthen an argument, we ought to look for an answer that provides more support between the premise and the conclusion, or provide a reason why the assumption in the argument is valid or sound. But other prep companies (i.e. Manhattan LSAT) say that a valid answer choice to a strengthening question can also make the conclusion more likely to be true, without affecting the premise-conclusion relationship.

When I reviewed PT23 S3 Q10, the correct answer choice B) does not seem to relate to any assumption in the argument, or provide more support between the premise-conclusion link, but rather it makes the conclusion more likely to be true. See: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q10-if-a-person-chooses-to-walk-t629.html

This question, along with several others, is making me doubt the soundness of Mr. Ping's approach to strengthening questions. Granted, it's always important to identify assumptions made in a LR stimulus that contains an argument, but are we precluding ourselves from selecting the right answer choice to some strengthening questions by doing this alone, instead of also look for possible answer choices that makes the conclusion more likely (adding an additional premise)?

I'm profoundly confused. Can a correct answer choice strengthen the conclusion without touching the premise-conclusion relationship, or not?

Thanks in advance!
Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • chrijani7chrijani7 Alum Member
    827 karma
    First off, never doubt Lord JY! He is the LSAT master. But forget that, lets take a look at the question.

    Conclusion: If people walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, pollution will be greatly reduced.
    Why is it that pollution will be reduced from people walking when it is feasible?
    Premise: If someone walks rather than drives, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air.

    But wait? how can we go from reducing the pollution cars emit into the air to pollution IN GENERAL being reduced. The author is assuming that cars greatly contribute to the air pollution. What if walking led to people littering more because they didn't want to carry their trash or something crazy or more smokers or whatever. Point is, what if people walking led to some other instance that would increase pollution.

    We need an answer choice that strengthens the argument
    (A) is talking about people who get rides, really has nothing to do with what were looking for.
    (C)just tells us that some people can contribute more than others to reducing pollution, but that doesn't strengthen how walking will lead to a great reduction. We can look at it the other way then, what if those who have cars that pollute more are those that do not decide to walk.
    (D) way off
    (E) is a weakener

    (B) on the other hand would strengthen the relationship that walking will lead to reduced pollution. Non-moving vehicles emit pollution to, but the important part for B comes from the second part, the greater congestion is the more non-moving vehicles there are.
    This strengthens our relationship between walking instead of driving to lead to reduced pollution. Because if we walk and there is less cars, then there its not unreasonable to believe that congestion will be reduced, meaning there will be less non-moving cars out there. Even if we don't want to accept the fact that less cars=less congestion. Just the fact that there will be one less car in general if someone walks instead of driving means that there will indefinitely be one less non-moving car then.

    So to answer your question. Answer choice (B) does provide more support for the Premise-Conclusion relationship. The relationship was [walking=1less car]-->lower pollution. (B) says greater congestion=more non-moving=more pollution, so that strengthens our support because if we walk, thats 1 less cars, which will be less congestion, which will be less pollution.
Sign In or Register to comment.