PT20.S4.Q25 - marianne is a professional chess player

Comments

• 1 Like

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  January 2017 8716 karma

  20-4-25 is weakening question. Let's tackle that first. We are asked to weaken Marianna's argument.
  We know that Marianne does a job professionally and when she does she distracts her opponents by humming. The officials told her: stop doing that or we will DQ you. Let's pause a second here. If you and I were talking and I was the chess player and you told me this, what exactly is your argument? Your argument seems to be: because your actions distract, stop doing them or else risk a DQ. What would you expect me to say in response to that? Logically, I would be inclined to say something about the basic structure of that argument: something like "distractions shouldn't lead to a automatic DQ."

  But Marianne doesn't go that way with her response. Instead, her response is: I'm unaware-->involuntary--->don't hold me responsible. This is a totally different trajectory from the official's argument. Marianne's argument doesn't really confront what the official has laid out. Instead, she makes some leaps, the most noticeable of which is the jump from something being involuntary to it not being something held responsible for. This is a presumption, it might not seem like one, but this is something that the LSAT expects us to differentiate. My teenage nephew has a seizure disorder. The disorder is involuntary. The law bars him operating a motor vehicle. Here we have a real life example to illuminate an link the difference between: involuntary and held responsible.

  Often times, weaken questions will ask us to weaken the assumptions between premises. That is our job here. (D) weakens the force of a premise on the way to support Marianne's conclusion.

  (C) leaves us making a presumption. That the some of the involuntary actions in the world are things that people are not unaware of. But is humming in that category?
• 2 Likes

  Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  January 2017 10806 karma

  PT20.4.25

  This question is great in terms of seeing the difference between the two arguments that are being made:

  Chess Officials argument:
  Chess Officials want Marianne to stop humming or else be disqualified.
  Are they saying that she is disqualified right now? Nope. There are saying, we are telling you what you have been doing (in past) and "in future" if you don't stop, we will disqualify you. (She is not disqualified on her past actions of humming but will be in future).

  Marianne's argument:
  She was unaware of her humming, her humming was involuntary, therefore she should not be held responsible for it.
  (Marianne's premise is about how in the past she was unaware and since that is involuntary she should not be held responsible for it in future.)
  But Marianne is making a shift in "tense" in her argument. We know that she was unaware in the past, but she is making a conclusion about how she should not be held responsible for it in future as well.

  As soon as I see a shift in tense in the conclusion, I try to see where the argument may have changed in terms of timing. Take a look at Marianne's premise. She is trying to conclude that because she was unaware in the past she should not be held responsible for it in future. But we know the Chess Officials have made her aware now! so she can't actually use that as a premise. What was true in the past (her being unaware) is no longer true (she is aware now). She is aware and she is failing to take that in to account by ignoring it in her argument.

  That's exactly what answer choice "D" does.
  A person who hums involuntary can easily learn to notice it (become aware of it) and thereby learn to control it.
  *its not an exact match for our pre-phrase but it does drive a wedge in Marianne's argument at the right spot. Just because in the past it was involuntary because you were not aware of it does not mean in the future that idea has to hold consistent. In other words, in the future because you can become aware and learn to control it, it is not longer involuntary and this weaken her argument by driving a wedge between her premise and her conclusion.

  Answer choice "C" says:
  Not all of a person's involuntary actions are actions of which a person is unaware.
  so, if its involuntary actions then some of the actions the person is aware.
  But our argument in the stimulus is the other way around: unaware therefore involuntary.
  Answer choice "C" is trying to get you on flipping: involuntary therefore possible they were aware.
  But answer choice "C" leaves the idea open that if someone is unaware it might be involuntary.
• 1 Like

  Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  January 2017 10806 karma

  @apublicdisplay said:

  For one thing, how is answer choice (C) different from PT29 - S1 - Q16 [https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/] correct answer choice (B)? There, (B) said "some..." and JY said even though the "some" may or may not address the case addressed in the stimulus, it could still potentially weaken the argument. So then why can't answer choice (C)s "Not all" in this case use the same reasoning?

  Well the difference between PT 29.1.16 answer choice B and PT 20.4.25. answer choice C is that both stimulus have different forms or argument. So the answer choice that we need to weaken our argument is different.

  In PT 29.1.16 the argument form goes:
  Premise1: A can help make conclusion about B. (language can help make conclusion about living condition).
  Premise 2: A sub lacks X ( this particular language lacks word for sea)
  Conclusion: therefore B lacks X (therefore the living conditions did not have sea)
  * The argument is assuming that what "can" help make a conclusion "will" help us make a conclusion about something. In other words, we know that languages CAN help us make a conclusion about living conclusion, but does that absolutely have to be true and in what sense does it have to be true?.
  Answer choice "B" goes after that assumption. That lack of X falls in the category of things which "A" cannot help us make a conclusion about.
  I.e. lack of a word in a language is not one of the things that can help us make a conclusion about living conditions.

  PT 20.4.25 has a different argument form:
  Premise: Unaware falls in the category of Involuntary
  Conclusion: Therefore not responsible for it in future.
  Another premise comes from the officials' argument: She is now aware of it.

  • I call it and I think the Trainer calls it the time inconsistency flaw. Where you assume that what was true of a set of conditions in past will be true in future.
    *answer choice "D" goes after that assumption, that a set of condition has changed because you are now "aware" so you cannot make the same conclusion.

  *Answer choice "C" is not going after that time inconsistency argument form. Moreover take a look at this :
  our premise says if unaware then involuntary (/A ------>/V)
  Answer choice C says: /V<----some------>A
  Those two sentences cannot be combined to make an inference. That would be invalid logically.

  • The reason behind that invalidity is that all of B (2) can be C( lets say C has 10). And then lets say some of C has D. (lets say D has 5 and it shares 3 of them with C).

  So C shares 2 out of its 10 things with B
  and C shares 3 out of its 10 things with D.
  Can we say B shares some with D?
  It can, but it doesn't have to at all. That's why answer choice C is wrong.

  • I hope that helped. : )
• 2 Likes

  apublicdisplay Alum Member

  January 2017 696 karma

  @BinghamtonDave and @Sami Thanks very much, that helped a lot