Hi. I don't see get it. pg. 434 Q.10 as equivalent question. shouldn't this be term shift ?
Pg.431, (Drill.80) Q.13, i don't see how this is C) illegal Reversal.
Pg.464,(drill 84), Q. 35, answer, the answer doesn't make sense. cuz the answer basically tells partially related cause (dictator for lie) results in the partially related effect (civil wars in that part of the world)
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- RogerD345
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 08th, 2018
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3805
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Don't get it. pg. 434 & pg.441 & 464
pg. 434
First of all, Term Shift isn't an available answer choice.
Secondly,
Term Shift = treating two different words/concepts as though they're equivalent
Equivocation = treating the same word/concept mentioned twice as though those multiple mentions were equivalent.
In Q10, we're using "public interest" twice, but the meanings aren't equivalent
1st usage - "referendum isn't in the public interest": if this referendum were to pass, it wouldn't benefit the public en masse
2nd usage - "the public is not interested in the referendum": this referendum didn't arouse the curiousity / attention / intrigue of the public.
pg 441 (you said pg 431, but this is drill 80)
Q13
"only if" = right side, so this would look like
"IF law can restrict citizens' rights, THEN serves a compelling societal interest"
ARGUMENT CORE:
this law serves a compelling interest ---> thus, it should be enacted
I agree that it's a sloppy example, since 'should be enacted' was not the sort of language used in the original conditional. The first sentence should read "A law restricting the rights of citizens should be enacted only if it serves a compelling societal interest".
However, the overall feel is still happening. We learn that this legislation would restrict some forms of public speech (presumably a right of citizens). And since the author is concluding the legislation should be enacted, he is assuming that it's okay for the law to restrict this right of citizens.
And how did the author get to the assumption that it's okay for the law to restrict the citizens' rights? Because the law serves the societal interest.
The author's thinking, "If it serves the societal interest, then it's okay for it to restrict the citizens' rights" is the illegal reversal.
pg. 464
Q35,
since the presumed cause/effect pairing is that
"convincing parliament to allow life term --> civil war"
a 'No cause, No effect' answer would sound something like
"When presidents were content to just serve one ten year term, there was no civil war"
or
"When presidents aren't trying to hold onto power for longer than usual, there was no civil unrest"
The answer provided could look like this, conditionally,
"If a president didn't seek to serve for life, then there wasn't a civil war".
Said in that way, it reads as "no cause, no effect"
First of all, Term Shift isn't an available answer choice.
Secondly,
Term Shift = treating two different words/concepts as though they're equivalent
Equivocation = treating the same word/concept mentioned twice as though those multiple mentions were equivalent.
In Q10, we're using "public interest" twice, but the meanings aren't equivalent
1st usage - "referendum isn't in the public interest": if this referendum were to pass, it wouldn't benefit the public en masse
2nd usage - "the public is not interested in the referendum": this referendum didn't arouse the curiousity / attention / intrigue of the public.
pg 441 (you said pg 431, but this is drill 80)
Q13
"only if" = right side, so this would look like
"IF law can restrict citizens' rights, THEN serves a compelling societal interest"
ARGUMENT CORE:
this law serves a compelling interest ---> thus, it should be enacted
I agree that it's a sloppy example, since 'should be enacted' was not the sort of language used in the original conditional. The first sentence should read "A law restricting the rights of citizens should be enacted only if it serves a compelling societal interest".
However, the overall feel is still happening. We learn that this legislation would restrict some forms of public speech (presumably a right of citizens). And since the author is concluding the legislation should be enacted, he is assuming that it's okay for the law to restrict this right of citizens.
And how did the author get to the assumption that it's okay for the law to restrict the citizens' rights? Because the law serves the societal interest.
The author's thinking, "If it serves the societal interest, then it's okay for it to restrict the citizens' rights" is the illegal reversal.
pg. 464
Q35,
since the presumed cause/effect pairing is that
"convincing parliament to allow life term --> civil war"
a 'No cause, No effect' answer would sound something like
"When presidents were content to just serve one ten year term, there was no civil war"
or
"When presidents aren't trying to hold onto power for longer than usual, there was no civil unrest"
The answer provided could look like this, conditionally,
"If a president didn't seek to serve for life, then there wasn't a civil war".
Said in that way, it reads as "no cause, no effect"
2 posts Page 1 of 1