So I know the LSAT doesn't really have 'guaranteed' rules that you can use (other than negation, etc), but has anyone come across a correct LR answer choice for a necessary assumption question that used the word "most"?
"Most" is used generally for trap answer choices because the negation of 'most' is 'less than half' and there's really nothing too special about crossing/not crossing the 50% mark for a necessary assumption (unless the stimulus is based on this majority/minority issue). I just looked at a necessary assumption LR question in PT70, S1,
#13 for instance and speedily and correctly eliminated three answers on the basis that they began with "most." Of course I went back to read the content, but still, seeing that word makes me less inclined to believe it is correct for NA questions.
I also realize precedents can be broken, but have there been any (correct with 'most') to anyone's knowledge?
Comments
I picked Most as the correct answer, but BR and found that 2/5 answer choices were Most to trap you... and the correct wasn't Most. Then it got me thinking... if it's a Necessary Assumption question, it probably would be a little stronger than most.... wouldn't it?
Hmm I feel like it's not that 'most' isn't strong enough for NA questions. After all, if you go one level higher, you get to "all" and that is definitely generally too strong for necessary assumptions ("all" is typically used for sufficient assumptions!).
I thought the significance of using 'most' to eliminate answers on NAs was just on the fact that the difference between having 49.8% of something and 51% of something is rather trivial UNLESS the stimulus said otherwise (and most don't). What do you think?
I do tend to eliminate answer choices when I see most in NA questions because they seem to usually be out of scope. For instance, if the argument says "x drug caused y reaction," there will be some answer choice that will say "most recipients of drug x did not have y reaction," I know it's trying to trick me. It's out of scope because, even if for most people it doesn't have the predicted effect, the argument holds if at least one person is affected.
I actually found a NA question that did in fact have "most" in the correct answer choice. As was predicted, the stimulus implied the necessity to have the correct answer be qualified with 'most.' If anyone is curious, the question is PT70, S4 #6.
If you negate it to say "less than half of the jobs will not demand that you be an expert at machines," then you can no longer conclude that education in technical expertise isn't better than education without. If say 49% of jobs don't care about your technical expertise while 51% do, you surely can deny the conclusion and say that technical expertise will give you a leg up in the employment race. Does that make sense?
If you are using shortcuts like these in lieu of evaluating the answer choices, then that's terrible. If you are using them but 'not really' - i.e., you go back to evaluate the answer choices on their actual merits anyway - then what was the point? People always claim that they always evaluate choices objectively, but how can that be true when out of the other side of your mouth, you're saying that the presence of a single word already casts doubt on that answer choice? And under pressure, guess what comes to the forefront? Yep - those shortcuts that you swore would never sway your judgment but that you're suddenly using as a tiebreaker ("which one of these SOUNDS stronger?") instead of actually thinking about the answer choices. Everyone's done it, so no righteous indignation necessary - it's only a matter of how often you've gotten away with it.
Whether answer choices are 'weak' or 'strong', 'broad' or 'narrow', 'vague' or 'specific' - those are all tangential to the question that you are being asked. The followup to every one of those "justifications" is "...and?", at which point you'd have to explain what the logical consequence of vagueness or strength or broadness is anyway. So why bother with the middleman? Make sure you know the actual reasoning and dispense with the shortcuts - they will only ever hurt you in the long run.