LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- yama_sekander
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 16th, 2011
Q15 - Magazine article: The Environmental
i narrowed it down to A and C and had a hard time determining which one was the right answer. can someone break down these two answers" thanks!
-
- demetri.blaisdell
-
Thanks Received: 161
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 198
- Joined: January 26th, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q15 - Magazine article: The Environmental
The argument core is a little tricky to pull out of this lengthy stimulus. I think this argument has two separate premises:
"Fresh Thinking" proposals are the same as Tsarque's proposals + Tsarque is a polluting company --> Let's ignore the "Fresh Thinking" proposals
The sassy tone can make it tricky to find this information but look now for it if you didn't see it the first time around. The gap in this argument is that there is no logical reason why polluters can't have great ideas about environmentalism. Arguing against someone's ideas by attacking their character is a very old strategy, but it still isn't logically valid. (C) gives us that exact flaw. The proposals are meant to be disregarded because they came from a polluter (or resembled those that were proposed by the CEO of a polluting company), not because they are flawed in any way.
(A) seems tempting, but isn't actually assumed by the argument. The argument only says that the proposals are virtually identical. It doesn't really matter if the two friends somehow came up with identical proposals separately (unlikely I know). The argument says that the "Fresh Thinking" proposals are the same as other proposals which we should reject (they came from a polluter!) and should therefore be rejected.
(B) attacks a premise of the argument. If the argument tells us that the proposals are virtually identical, we have to trust it. We are meant to evaluate the connection between the premise and the conclusion, not whether the premise is true.
(D) is out of scope. Properly reasoned arguments can use emotive language and that isn't a reason to believe they are flawed.
(E) is not a flaw in the argument. An appeal to authority would imply that the author trusts Tsarque Inc.'s chief. The author thinks the chief's proposals should be ignored precisely because they come from the chief of a polluting company.
I hope this helps clear up your confusion. Let me know if you have any questions.
Demetri
"Fresh Thinking" proposals are the same as Tsarque's proposals + Tsarque is a polluting company --> Let's ignore the "Fresh Thinking" proposals
The sassy tone can make it tricky to find this information but look now for it if you didn't see it the first time around. The gap in this argument is that there is no logical reason why polluters can't have great ideas about environmentalism. Arguing against someone's ideas by attacking their character is a very old strategy, but it still isn't logically valid. (C) gives us that exact flaw. The proposals are meant to be disregarded because they came from a polluter (or resembled those that were proposed by the CEO of a polluting company), not because they are flawed in any way.
(A) seems tempting, but isn't actually assumed by the argument. The argument only says that the proposals are virtually identical. It doesn't really matter if the two friends somehow came up with identical proposals separately (unlikely I know). The argument says that the "Fresh Thinking" proposals are the same as other proposals which we should reject (they came from a polluter!) and should therefore be rejected.
(B) attacks a premise of the argument. If the argument tells us that the proposals are virtually identical, we have to trust it. We are meant to evaluate the connection between the premise and the conclusion, not whether the premise is true.
(D) is out of scope. Properly reasoned arguments can use emotive language and that isn't a reason to believe they are flawed.
(E) is not a flaw in the argument. An appeal to authority would imply that the author trusts Tsarque Inc.'s chief. The author thinks the chief's proposals should be ignored precisely because they come from the chief of a polluting company.
I hope this helps clear up your confusion. Let me know if you have any questions.
Demetri
2 posts Page 1 of 1