PT37.S4.Q22 - druid stones in ireland

Sarah889Sarah889 Alum Member
edited October 2016 in Logical Reasoning 877 karma
Hey All,

I've watched JY's explanation of this video and I'm beginning to see why E could be a correct answer...but I do not understand why it is THE correct answer. I fear that if I was asked this question again, I would still choose B.

Here's my reasoning. The question says that the druid stones discovered in Ireland are very old, but there was a particular druid stone found in Scotland, so, therefore, this one must be more recent. Before approaching the answer choices, I figured, okay...the argument is making an assumption about things found in Scotland. The assumption is that most things found in Scotland (or at the very least, the druid stones found in Scotland) must be newer than druid stones found in Ireland.

Coming from this understanding, I do not understand why B is not the answer. B states that the argument is flawed because it takes the fact that most members of a group (things found in Scotland) have a certain property (newness comparative to Ireland stones) to constitute evidence that all members of the group (including the druid stone found in Scotland) have that property. This embodies the assumption the argument is forcing us to make. Just because some things are newer in Scotland, does mean that everything found in Scotland has this property.

I consider E to be less correct. Where in the argument is it accusing druid stones of being the ONLY members of a group with a certain property? How are we supposed to infer from this argument that the author is making an "Ireland druid stone vs every other druid stone" distinction, rather than an "Ireland druid stone vs. Scotland druid stone" distinction.

Comments

  • ToxoplasmosisToxoplasmosis Alum Member
    233 karma
    I think the main issue with your analysis is your understanding of "most" in this context. When approaching this question I eliminated B immediately because its use of "most" was not consistent with my understanding of the stimulus. Nowhere in the stim is the word "most" or concept of most written or even implied. I believe the flawed argument that AC B. is describing would be something along the lines of "Most stones in Ireland are old, we found a stone in Ireland, therefore it must also be old". Where as the stimulus says "all druid stones in Ireland are old, this druid stone was not found in Ireland, therefore it must not be old". AC E. best captures this flaw because it is correct in stating that we just don't know that Irish druid stones are the only ones which are really old, just because all Irish stones are old doesn't mean that ONLY Irish stones are old (ie doesn't preclude Scottish druid stones from also being old). Hope this helps!
  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8711 karma
    Just to be clear on the actual flaw here before we delve into the abstract language. The stimulus is say that the stones in Ireland are old. From that premise, meaning building on the statement, the argument concludes that the stones in Scotland are not as old. What this seems to be saying is that If something is a stone in Ireland then it is old. The conclusion is then essentially saying that if something is not Ireland then it is not as old.

    Consider an analogous argument: The New York Mets are a really really good baseball team. Therefore, the Chicago Cubs must not be a comparably good baseball team. What I am saying here is that if something is not New York Mets then it isn't as good.

    Another way of saying what I did there (and what this question is doing) is that both examples are saying that the Ireland stones and the NY Mets are the only thing that is very old or good. The only is a sufficient condition indicator.

    (B) in this regard really doesn't do anything for us. First it introduces a most statement where introducing one isn't all that helpful or factually true of what our argument did. Second it extrapolates from that most statement with the claim that all things have that property. This isn't what our argument is doing. A simple example of (B) would be: most professional boxers have great defense, therefore all professional boxers have great defense. Our argument is actually saying something like: Mike Tyson had great defense, therefore James Toney does not have as great as defense. See the difference?

    (E) is what we are looking for.

    Hope the above explanation helped. Also, check out the lesson on "The Only" in the CC. The LSAT is speaking to us in a language of abstraction we must be fluent in. The CC is a great device for mastering this language.
    https://7sage.com/lesson/clarification-for-the-only/
  • Sarah889Sarah889 Alum Member
    877 karma
    @Toxoplasmosis and @David3389

    Thank you both. This is immensely helpful. I do see the problem with B now.
  • ToxoplasmosisToxoplasmosis Alum Member
    233 karma
    @David3389 said:
    The only is a sufficient condition indicator.
    I think viewing this question as as sufficiency/necessity confusion flaw question is really intuitive. Interesting perspective and thanks for this!
Sign In or Register to comment.