Q10 - To accomodate the personal

[pgerretsen]

Can you explain to me question 10. I selected C and is not sure why A is correct. Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Yeah, this one is sort of tough for being question #10. I agree that answer choice (C) can be tempting because one might think that the author failed to consider that other technological innovations might have led to the same results.

Definitely try to see this from the test-writer's perspective. A causes B, therefore without A, B wouldn't occur. This argument is sort of like a Negation in conditional logic, but it's more about causation. So I'd be tempted to describe the flaw as assuming that B could have only occurred as a result of A. This is expressed in answer choice (A).

Answer choice (C) is not true because the author's argument does not overlook the fact that other technological innovations have had some effect. The author's argument is causal but it doesn't assume that only the automobile has had an effect on the way people live. The author's argument allows for other innovations to have helped shape the way people live.

Does that answer your question?

[pgerretsen]

Yes, thank you.

[antarias90]

"Answer choice (C) is not true because the author's argument does not overlook the fact that other technological innovations have had some effect. The author's argument is causal but it doesn't assume that only the automobile has had an effect on the way people live. The author's argument allows for other innovations to have helped shape the way people live."

I'm not sure if I agree with this reason for eliminating C. I don't think that the author allows for other innovations to have helped shape the way people live. To be honest, I don't think that he even touches upon such a thing. I would have eliminated C because we are not necessarily talking about the way people live; to be as tedious as the LSAT would like, we are looking for something that has impacted current geography.

The correct answer (A), not coincidentally, does not say "infers from the idea that the way people live resulted..." it says "the current geography of modern cities."

Is this a good reason? I'm just trying to make sure I am eliminating these answers for the right reason.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I would have eliminated C because we are not necessarily talking about the way people live; to be as tedious as the LSAT would like, we are looking for something that has impacted current geography.

The correct answer (A), not coincidentally, does not say "infers from the idea that the way people live resulted..." it says "the current geography of modern cities."

Is this a good reason? I'm just trying to make sure I am eliminating these answers for the right reason

This is one of the most frustrating parts of the LSAT. When is it okay for them to switch between language like "the geography of modern cities" and "the way people live?"

There's no simple answer, but here's my strategy. Early in the section (Q1-15) I generally stay very flexible on language and allow them shifts and only tighten up on the language if I have more than one answer choice remaining. Later in the section (Q16-25) I scrutinize language much more carefully, though am willing loosen up if I end up with no contending answer choices.

With regard to answer choice (C), I'd stick with my original explanation. And as you noted yourself, the author doesn't touch on other factors. That definitely leaves room for other factors to be involved. The author is saying that the personal automobile impacted the shape of modern cities, and therefore had we not had the personal automobile our cities would like quite different. The issue is that modern cities could have ended up very similarly even without personal automobiles. The author does not overlook that other factors could be involved, but rather thinks that the current shape of modern cities could not have been achieved without personal automobiles.

Hope that helps!

[coco.wu1993]

There's no simple answer, but here's my strategy. Early in the section (Q1-15) I generally stay very flexible on language and allow them shifts and only tighten up on the language if I have more than one answer choice remaining. Later in the section (Q16-25) I scrutinize language much more carefully, though am willing loosen up if I end up with no contending answer choices.

Can I know the rationale behind this strategy? Is it because that the later part of the section is harder and trickier? Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Yes, Coco, but it's a little more complex than that. Look up the difficulty curve on the LSAT (on Google or something) to get all the details!

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

I eliminated (C) ultimately because of its vagueness. So (C) is talking about other technological innovations other than personal automobiles, saying that they have had "some effect" on the way "people live."

Well how are we supposed to know that this means a change in geography? Couldn't it be true that the answer choice is true and the geography looks exactly the same? Maybe the technological innovations that are being discussed are personal computers and these laptops computers lead people to spend more time at home (it affects the way people live). Maybe parking lots were built anyway for people to park their computers. I mean YES it IS crazy but its only crazy by our standards and not exactly the standards of logic. If we can say that - with the answer choice being true - the premise-conclusion relationship still has the opportunity to make sense, shouldn't this show that the answer choice is not the flaw. When we put in the flaw - the correct answer choice - it just exposes what's wrong with the argument to make the conclusion not follow so smoothly. I don't know maybe someone can chime in on this.

The whole point of this question is the mistaken reversal.

The argument says Cars --> Our Geography and thus ~Cars --> ~Our Geography (or G --> C).

Thus when the answer choice says that the argument infers that the "geography" resulted from a "particular cause" (Cars) and that it "could only have resulted from that cause" (aka that if G --> C), it seems to line up perfectly with what the argument is doing.

[lsatzen]

EDIT: No need to respond. Page 161 answered all my lingering questions. Lesson? Read to the end lsatzen...read to the end.

I chose (C) when I was going through the MLSAT LR book, for the first time, but upon revisiting this problem, I think I see why (C) is clearly incorrect. Can someone please verify my reasoning?

Conclusion:
If people did not use cars, the modern cities would be different from the ones we have now.

Premise:
Use of cars resulted in scattered houses, immense parking lots, and less wooded areas.

Analysis:
Just because the houses and parking lots arouse as a result of the use of cars, doesn't mean that the cars were the only way the house and parking lots arouse. There could be a multitude of other ways that that specific landscape arouse. (A) highlights that flaw.

I think the key to this question is recognizing that the argument is assuming an implicit causal connection between the use of cars and the specific landscape that resulted from that use. It is not assuming that only the use of cars can have any affect on the landscape of cities in general, but rather, that only the use of cars could have caused a specific landscape to occur. Reading the argument this way actually allows for the (C) to be true without have a negative impact on the argument.

Like Matt Sherman was saying, the author allows for this possibility, because the argument is focused on a very specific instance of cause and effect; between the use of cars and a specific landscape change.

Edit: Looking back on my thought process, I can see why I chose answer choice (C), based on my loose understanding of the argument. My general pre-phrase was something along the lines of: "Well something other than cars can affect geography too"

[michaelwcarper]

Can someone explain why D is incorrect? The book says, "this answer might be attractive if it is misread, but note that it says that the argument takes for granted that shopping malls do not need large parking lots--this is the reverse of what the author discusses, and it is not something that is therefore taken for granted."

Isn't this an assumption that could be read into the argument? Maybe shopping malls need large parking lots to house fireworks stands or greenhouses in the summer. Even without cars, they still might have built them.

[ohthatpatrick]

The author is claiming that without cars, we wouldn't have the type of modern cities we currently do (scattered houses far from work / immense parking lots near shopping malls / etc.)

So we could potentially make an objection similar to what you were implying:

Nuh-uh, author. Even without cars, we would STILL have wanted to have huge parking lots near shopping malls .... so that we can put seasonal installations of fireworks stands, greenhouses, ice skating rinks, and so forth.

This is a pretty limited objection because it only targets the parking lot part of modern city geography, but it is still a valid way of objecting.

Since our objection is "even without cars, we might have needed to make large parking lots near shopping malls"
that means the author's assumption is "without cars, we would NOT have needed to make large parking lots near shopping malls".

This is really close to what (D) says, with two crucial differences.

Restating ours, the author "takes for granted that shopping malls would not need large parking lots if personal automobiles were not generally being used".

Meanwhile, (D) says "shopping malls do not need large parking lots even given the use of the personal automobile."

The author has to assume that we WOULD not still need big parking lots, even without cars.

This answer says that the author assumes we DO not need parking lots, given that we DO use cars.

Do you see the big differences?

Since "takes for granted" = "necessary assumption", you can always try using the Negation Test on answer choices that start this way on a Flaw question.

If we negate (D), does it crush the argument?
"shopping malls DO need large parking lots even given the use of the car".

No, it doesn't crush. In fact, it agrees with the argument!

I think you were reading "even given" as "even without".

=== other answers ==

(B) Flaw answer choices that say the author Inferred X from the claim that Y are simply right/wrong based on whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the premise. But watch out for weird syntax. This says the author Infers, from the idea that Y, that X.

So we would just ask, does this match the evidence?
"the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause"? Yes, that seems decent.

Does this match the conclusion?
"other facets of life resulted from the use of the automobile"

Not at all. Eliminate.

(E) How can we accuse the author of assuming that people want to give up their cars? Nothing close to that is ever discussed.

[michaelwcarper]

Yeah, I was misreading what "even given" means...The wording made me think it meant "even without."

[Dtodaizzle]

Hey sorry to bump an old post, but I was struggling between answers A & C as well.

I ultimately chose answer C because in answer A, it is saying that ...only have resulted from that cause, whereas, the conclusion of this argument is saying that the result would be quite different had people not adopted personal automobiles.

Well "quite different" signifies it is very different, it doesn't connote the same extreme as "completely different."

For example

This class is quite different from what I am used to.

This class is completely different from what I am used to.

Whereas the former imply that there are similarities, albeit minute ones, the ladder is an absolute statement dictating that no similarities exist.

Could someone please explain? Thanks!

[Dtodaizzle]

Bump...

Yo necessito ayuda

[contropositive]

I have the same reasoning as Walt's and antarias90 post. The argument is saying "had people not used personal auto, THE RESULT would have been a geography of modern cities quite different from the one we have now."

This conclusion is clearly indicating that the personal autos is CAUSING the design of landscape. there could be other factors causing the design of landscape and that is was A covers. C is wrong because 1) "have had some effect on the WAY PEOPLE LIVE" is irrelevant to design of landscape, we can't be sure that the way people live is relevant to the way their geography is designed. 2) this answer seems to agree with the argument instead of exposing the flaw. It telling us BESIDES AUTOs, THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS. To me, that's just telling us "i agree its autos but there are other factors too"

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with reason 1 wholeheartedly and am okay with reason 2.

[StratosM31]

I'm in the phase where I review all hard/confusing LR questions and try to play the devil's most vicious advocate when eliminating answer choices. Means, most of us would eliminate (C) under time pressure simply because it's way more vague and less clear than (A). But, for the sake of sharpening our LR skills (which might be crucial for harder questions), let's view this choice from a structural perspective only, and assume that (C) says "geography" than "way people live".

Now, what? Under conditional logic terms, the stimlus says:

Premise: A --> B
Conclusion: notA --> notB.

Means, the premise says A is a suffcient condition for B, and in the conclusion it is treated as necessary. THIS is the flaw, and it is clearly stated in (A).

Good, but how about (C), why is it wrong? (C) basically says that the stimulus overlooked the fact that there might be a combination of sufficient conditions which led to B, or, in conditional logic terms:

Stimulus assumes A --> B, while it could be the case that (A + C) --> B.

Now, even if the stimulus overlooked that, is it really a flaw?

Premise: (A+C) --> B
Conclusion: notA --> notB.

Now, compare the two versions. The conclusion is wrong for the same reason, whether we include or leave out C. Therefore, the problem is NOT the fact that the sufficient assumption might be incomplete, but the fact that it is treated as necessary!!!

It's like saying: "Einstein discovered relativity theory. Therefore, if Einstein had not lived, relativity theory would never have been discovered." And somebody jumps in and says: "But, you overlooked the fact that there were a dozen people who assisted Einstein with his experiments, therefore they had a mentionable contribution to it as well." Yes, I overlooked it, but why on earth would it identify the flaw in my argument?!

[Laura Damone]

That's a great way to think about "overlooked/fails to consider" flaw answers. Frequently they will accuse the argument of overlooking something that it legitimately didn't address, but unless that thing is a real objection to the argument, overlooking it doesn't matter. Well played!