16. (C)
Question type: Assumption
There is a significant gap in the logic of the argument _ the premises build upon one another to show why a certain type of legislature is more likely to compromise, and then the author reaches a conclusion about productivity. However, compromise does not necessarily lead to productivity.
Answer choice (C) addresses this gap, and is therefore correct.
(A) is outside the scope of the argument. It is neither warranted by the evidence, nor related to the conclusion.
(B) is outside the scope of the argument. How "important" compromise is to the parties is not relevant.
(D) is outside the scope of the argument. Nondemocracies are not discussed, nor relevant.
(E) is too extreme, and there is no context to help define "important" issues.
LSAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- dan
-
Thanks Received: 155
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 202
- Joined: March 10th, 2009
-
- Aquamarine
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 43
- Joined: August 21st, 2013
Re: PT50, S2, Q16 Among multiparty democracies, those with the
I have two questions about this question.
1) Which sentence is the conclusion in the stimulus?
I'm confused between the first and last sentence.
2) I was down to B and C, and am having a difficult time understanding why B is incorrect.
Can someone please explain me?
Thanks in advance!
1) Which sentence is the conclusion in the stimulus?
I'm confused between the first and last sentence.
2) I was down to B and C, and am having a difficult time understanding why B is incorrect.
Can someone please explain me?
Thanks in advance!
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: PT50, S2, Q16 Among multiparty democracies, those with the
It's tough to find the conclusion when there are no keywords to indicate conclusion or support.
In these cases, we have to rely on the more general sense of "which claim is being supported by the rest of the argument?"
Remember, every argument should function like this:
CONCLUSION
why?
Because, PREMISE(s)
This argument begins with the conclusion.
CONCLUSION:
the democracies with the fewest number of parties will have the most-productive legislatures.
why?
because,
PREMISE:
The fewer parties you have, the more issues each party takes a stand on. The more issues a party takes a stand on, the more likely that party is to compromise.
The fact that these last two sentences synthesize together is what would tell you that neither of these is the conclusion. Premises often combine together to allow authors to derive a conclusion.
For example:
Golfers are undateable. Golfers wear plaid pants and people who wear plaid pants are lame.
I can synthesize the last two ideas to get "golfers are lame". That means that the first sentence must be the conclusion and the assumption must be that "if you're lame, you're undateable".
In this argument, the last two sentences synthesize to give us
"The fewer parties you have, the more likely you are to have parties that compromise".
The conclusion, meanwhile, is saying
"The fewer parties you have, the more likely you are to have a productive legislature".
What is the difference/gap?
The premises are proving that fewer parties = more compromise
The conclusion is claiming that fewer parties = more productive
So (C) takes us from what the premises were actually talking about to what the conclusion was talking about.
(B) would probably not be as tempting to you if you had known initially what the Main Conclusion is. Hopefully you've heard this before, but if a term/idea appears only in the conclusion, then the correct answer is going to have to deal with it. In this argument, "most-productive" appears only in the conclusion. So the correct answer has to deal with productivity. (B) does not.
The real out of scope term in (B) is "important". If you read the last sentence again, it's only talking about a greater TENDENCY to compromise. That sort of language doesn't indicate whether compromising is good/bad/important/irrelevant, etc. All that sort of language does is say "when X happens, Y tends to happen".
Consider this:
The more you listen to funk, the more you concentrate on the bass player. Concentrating on a bass player tends to make you tap your foot.
Is this author assuming that "the more you listen to funk, the more important it is that you tap your foot"?
No, because the author isn't stressing that tapping your foot is important, only that it tends to happen when you focus on the bass.
Let me know if you have continuing questions on this one.
In these cases, we have to rely on the more general sense of "which claim is being supported by the rest of the argument?"
Remember, every argument should function like this:
CONCLUSION
why?
Because, PREMISE(s)
This argument begins with the conclusion.
CONCLUSION:
the democracies with the fewest number of parties will have the most-productive legislatures.
why?
because,
PREMISE:
The fewer parties you have, the more issues each party takes a stand on. The more issues a party takes a stand on, the more likely that party is to compromise.
The fact that these last two sentences synthesize together is what would tell you that neither of these is the conclusion. Premises often combine together to allow authors to derive a conclusion.
For example:
Golfers are undateable. Golfers wear plaid pants and people who wear plaid pants are lame.
I can synthesize the last two ideas to get "golfers are lame". That means that the first sentence must be the conclusion and the assumption must be that "if you're lame, you're undateable".
In this argument, the last two sentences synthesize to give us
"The fewer parties you have, the more likely you are to have parties that compromise".
The conclusion, meanwhile, is saying
"The fewer parties you have, the more likely you are to have a productive legislature".
What is the difference/gap?
The premises are proving that fewer parties = more compromise
The conclusion is claiming that fewer parties = more productive
So (C) takes us from what the premises were actually talking about to what the conclusion was talking about.
(B) would probably not be as tempting to you if you had known initially what the Main Conclusion is. Hopefully you've heard this before, but if a term/idea appears only in the conclusion, then the correct answer is going to have to deal with it. In this argument, "most-productive" appears only in the conclusion. So the correct answer has to deal with productivity. (B) does not.
The real out of scope term in (B) is "important". If you read the last sentence again, it's only talking about a greater TENDENCY to compromise. That sort of language doesn't indicate whether compromising is good/bad/important/irrelevant, etc. All that sort of language does is say "when X happens, Y tends to happen".
Consider this:
The more you listen to funk, the more you concentrate on the bass player. Concentrating on a bass player tends to make you tap your foot.
Is this author assuming that "the more you listen to funk, the more important it is that you tap your foot"?
No, because the author isn't stressing that tapping your foot is important, only that it tends to happen when you focus on the bass.
Let me know if you have continuing questions on this one.
-
- Emmeline Ndongue
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 36
- Joined: September 12th, 2017
Re: PT50, S2, Q16 Among multiparty democracies, those with the
Aquamarine Wrote:I have two questions about this question.
1) Which sentence is the conclusion in the stimulus?
I'm confused between the first and last sentence.
2) I was down to B and C, and am having a difficult time understanding why B is incorrect.
Can someone please explain me?
Thanks in advance!
I had the exact same problem with you and mischose the last sentence as the conclusion and led to a confusion which dragged me off.
I'd say if you didn't identify the 1st sentence as the conclusion, it'd be EXTREMELY HARD to finish this one FAST & Correctly in 2 mins.
4 posts Page 1 of 1