Translation of "derive solely from"

Comments

• LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 13286 karma

  “Derive solely from” is really strong language.

  The way I approached it was to translate the phrase:

  “Derive solely from” = “can only come from”

  For instance;

  • something’s value can only come from the pleasure it provides.

  In which case;

  Value -> Pleasure

  This thing has X value, then it must provide Y pleasure.

  At least this is how I understand it.
• akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  October 2017 9382 karma

  Thank you @LSATcantwin !

  But PT62.S4.Q15 is a PSA question with a stimulus basically saying this:

  P: A real diamond and a counterfeit have the same aesthetic pleasure
  ——–——–
  C: A real diamond and a counterfeit are equally valuable

  So I think the correct answer should say “Pleasure —> Valuable”

  Am I missing something??
• LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 13286 karma

  @akistotle said:
  Thank you @LSATcantwin !

  But PT62.S4.Q15 is a PSA question with a stimulus basically saying this:

  P: A real diamond and a counterfeit have the same aesthetic pleasure
  ——–——–
  C: A real diamond and a counterfeit are equally valuable

  So I think the correct answer should say “Pleasure —> Valuable”

  Am I missing something??

  I was just grappling with it some more because I noticed that.

  It helps me to take this out of conditional logic.

  Value is tied to pleasure. If value increases then pleasure increases. If value decreases then pleasure decreases.

  It works opposite also. If pleasure increases then value increases. If pleasure decreases then value decreases.

  The right answer choice is just saying that pleasure depends only on value and nothing else. So if they have equal value, then they then they have equal pleasure. If they have equal pleasure than they have equal value.
• Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  October 2017 edited October 2017 10806 karma

  When you write pleasurable ---> valuable, you are missing out the nuances and depth of the stimulus. The stimulus is saying if two things give equal pleasure then we should value them equally.

  Instead of just finding an answer choice that says pleasure therefore valuable, you want to see how you can determine two things would be of equal value.

  So if I say value is calculated solely from measuring the amount of pleasure a thing gives and I plug this premise into our stimulus where we know the real and fake diamond give equal pleasure -based on this information what can you conclude about their value? You would then say, the two things are equal in value making the conclusion in our stimulus valid.

  So although its helpful to see that we need to connect premise to conclusion, if you just look for premise --> conclusion you can miss out the many ways the LSAT writers can give the same answer to you. It's not that if pleasurable then valuable, but more like if we know the amount of pleasure two things give we can determine their value because pleasure is the only thing that we need to take into consideration.

  I hope that helps Akiko. Let me know
• 1 Like

  akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  October 2017 9382 karma

  Thank you @LSATcantwin and @Sami!!! It all makes sense now. I should get out of the habit of always mechanically translating LR stimulus & answers.

  https://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/8/82bdc230-7447-0133-ed15-0aa00699013d.gif