Q12 - Columnist: If you received

[mrudula_2005]

Just want to make sure my reasoning for chucking answer choice C is right:

The conclusion is "It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources (the anonymous sources in news stories)" and thereby restricts itself to a concern with only being skeptical of anonymous sources in news stories and does not concern itself with "all situations of a given type" (it doesn't make a sweeping generalization like 'whenever you ever encounter anonymous sources, it's right to be skeptical').

Also, the second part of answer choice C states "...on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type" - but the author never justifiesthat attitude in the hypothetical of the unsigned letter in sentance 1...he merely says that one would be" likely to have doubts about the truth of its contents".

Are both of these reasons for discounting C fair?

thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Reading very closely, both of your reasons for dismissing answer choice (C) are fair. However, I don't think such a tight reading of answer choice (C) was intended by the test-writers on this question.

So the main reason why you would dismiss answer choice (C) is the sweeping claim that the attitude would be justified in all situations. You're second reason is probably not intended by the test-writer.

Great work!

[qtcherrysyrup]

I chose C and still can't undestand why it's wrong.
Will someone pleae explain each answer choice?
Thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Glad to!

This one is pretty challenging...

The argument core is

Because one would have doubts about the credibility of an anonymous letter, you should have doubts about the credibility of anonymous sources in newspapers.

Pretty straight forward, but the argument asks us to generalize the argument form. A tougher step for most people. Abstracting a general form from a specific example is a different way of thinking than is commonly used.

The method of reasoning here advocates that one should have a certain belief in a certain situation, if one is likely to have the same belief in similar situation. Best expressed in answer choice (A).

(B) is correct about drawing an analogy. But the attitude is not different as the answer choice suggests.
(C) is too strong. The principle underlying the argument in the stimulus does not suggest that the attitude should be drawn in "all situations," but rather just another situation.
(D) is out of scope. The argument does not show that certain evidence is usually false.
(E) is unsupported. The argument does not attempt to establish that certain information is likely to be false. The argument is simply about the attitude one should take under certain circumstances - skepticism.

I hope that helps on this one! Good luck.

[yusangmin]

thanks for all your help.

it sucks when you previously zoomed through a question a few months before, and on seein the question again you arent rocking it as well.. freakin LSATS

my question about B is that.
its saying an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation (you treat news stories with respect) with a different attitude in another situation (skepticism for unsigned letters) and saying that the latter is better justified than the former ( you should be skeptical rather than receptive)

so i layed it out..WHAT IS THE PROBLEM!?!?! i dont see any holes...is it the "former" and "latter" as in i switched it up? I dont think its that because the LSAT is annoying but from my experience i dont think theyre THAT annoying to play little tricks like that. i dont see how this is any different from A.

thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sometimes the LSAT folks are so good at turning us around that we don't even know what we're looking for...

Take a close look at the argument. It says that we should be skeptical of anonymous sources just like you would be skeptical of an unsigned letter. The attitude in the argument is similar. Answer choice (A) mentions a similar attitude but answer choice (B) mentions a different attitude.

Where you went wrong was when you established the two attitudes.

my question about B is that.
its saying an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation (you treat news stories with respect) with a different attitude in another situation (skepticism for unsigned letters) and saying that the latter is better justified than the former ( you should be skeptical rather than receptive)

The argument never mentions any attitude other than skeptical.

Does that help clear this one up?

[zainrizvi]

I'm confused, isn't "utmost respect" a form of attitude?

I thought B) was wrong because the author doesn't form an analogy BETWEEN attitudes, but BETWEEN situations (unsigned letter vs anonymous quote). It is an analogy ABOUT the attitudes, but not BETWEEN them.

Can anyone confirm if that makes sense?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ha! Great point. I missed the fact that "utmost respect" is an attitude. I was focussed on the argument core - which suggests that because we would be skeptical of unsigned letters that we should be skeptical of anonymous sources.

I think the reason, why I missed that part is because the statement involving "utmost respect" doesn't really fall into a central part of the argument. Since it's not really part of the argument, we can't say that it is contained within any analogy.

The analogy is the between the attitude commonly adopted when one receives an unsigned letter and the the attitude one should adopt when one reads information from an anonymous source.

Answer choice (B) is wrong because it says a different attitude, since the attitude that is recommended in the conclusion is not a different attitude than one would adopt when faced with an unsigned letter, but rather the same attitude.

Essentially you are right that the author doesn't draw an analogy between the way we typically respond to anonymous sources and the way we respond to unsigned letters, but between the way we should respond to anonymous sources and the way we respond to unsigned letters. But it's not the difference between attitudes and situations. The analogous position is about a similar attitude that should be adopted.

Does that answer your question?

[zainrizvi]

Sort of, but I'm still a bit confused about the terminology used in describing an analogy.

Could you maybe describe this using a different, simpler of an analogy? I'm drawing blanks when it comes to coming up with an example.. but maybe I just need to see it in a different situation

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

An analogy tries to compare two situations, and typically suggests that because they're similar in one respect that they're similar in another respect. Appropriate analogies are ones in which the situations are actually similar, and inappropriate analogies are ones in which there is some fundamental difference that would suggest the two situations should not be compared.

Suppose Tom (some guy I just made up) came to work late, and he was therefore fired. If the argument was to suggest that firing Tom was justified because when Sarah was fired for being late, it was justified then, that would be appealing to an analogous situation.

It's important to distinguish the difference between an analogy and an example. An analogy is a different, yet similar situation, whereas an example is an illustration of the situation at hand.

So cars and airplanes are both examples of modes of transportation. And yet if someone should be nervous while flying because they should be nervous while driving, that'd be another appeal to an analogous situation.

Let me know if you still have further questions here though!

[zainrizvi]

An analogy tries to compare two situations, and typically suggests that because they're similar in one respect that they're similar in another respect. Appropriate analogies are ones in which the situations are actually similar, and inappropriate analogies are ones in which there is some fundamental difference that would suggest the two situations should not be compared.

Suppose Tom (some guy I just made up) came to work late, and he was therefore fired. If the argument was to suggest that firing Tom was justified because when Sarah was fired for being late, it was justified then, that would be appealing to an analogous situation.

It's important to distinguish the difference between an analogy and an example. An analogy is a different, yet similar situation, whereas an example is an illustration of the situation at hand.

So cars and airplanes are both examples of modes of transportation. And yet if someone should be nervous while flying because they should be nervous while driving, that'd be another appeal to an analogous situation.

Let me know if you still have further questions here though!

In that Tom and Sarah example, what would be the analogy be BETWEEN, and what would be the analogous position? Does the analogous position refer to kind of the premise (oh they are similar this way) or does it refer to the conclusion(they should be both treated this way)?

I think the analogy would be between Tom and Sarah's situation. The analogous position would be their situations are similar.

The terminology itself is what trips me up a bit.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

In that Tom and Sarah example, what would be the analogy be BETWEEN, and what would be the analogous position?

Ah, there is no difference! An "analogy" is noun, whereas "analogous" is an adjective. The latter modifies another word, but essentially an appeal to an analogy and pointing out an analogous position are essentially the same thing.

Does that answer your question?

[magnusgan]

When the question states "proceeds by," does the sequence of "events" in the answer choice have to match the sequence of "events" in the stem?

If so, (B) could be quickly ruled out as it mixes up former and latter...

[Mab6q]

It seems to me that every other explanation in this section has an original post that indicates that a wrong answer is correct. It might be prudent to fix that to avoid confusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

I can't figure out what error you caught, but thanks for trying to alert us.

Were you saying the correct answer choice in this thread is mis-identified?

It looked to me like everything was correctly saying that (A) was correct or that any other answer choice was wrong.

When you said "every other explanation in this section" did you mean other questions from this LR section .... or am I just missing the post where someone starts alluding to a different correct answer?

Can you clarify the error? Thanks again.

[BaopuZ34]

I have seen through all the post upon How to identify and dismiss choice B but seems no one held same viewpoint with me? Basically, B states a wrong sequence. In the argument, the former attitude is keeping skeptical upon unsigned letters and the latter refers to utmost respect. Answer B's statement that the latter attitude is better justified than the former is a reversal of what happens in argument…

However, I do not find another LSAT question tests on sequence like this. Therefore, maybe this technique is a fake one, it just coincides with a real reason you guys have already posted above.

[andreperez7]

I have seen through all the post upon How to identify and dismiss choice B but seems no one held same viewpoint with me? Basically, B states a wrong sequence. In the argument, the former attitude is keeping skeptical upon unsigned letters and the latter refers to utmost respect. Answer B's statement that the latter attitude is better justified than the former is a reversal of what happens in argument…

However, I do not find another LSAT question tests on sequence like this. Therefore, maybe this technique is a fake one, it just coincides with a real reason you guys have already posted above.

You're correct.


First sentence: In one situation, you'd be skeptical.

Second sentence: In a similar second situation, others aren't skeptical.

First half of third sentence and conclusion: You should be skeptical in that second situation too.

Second half of third sentence and premise: Because the same danger exists in both situations.

The order definitely conflicts.