walkerdoreen07
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 17
Joined: February 17th, 2010
 
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Q16 - Editorialist: Some people propose

by walkerdoreen07 Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:38 am

Hello

I chose E which is wrong answer. I'm not sure why...it was the best answer. I think I misunderstood the questioin. The EXCEPT question is confusing sometimes. I'm thinking I need to choose an answer that strengthen...confused:(

Help

Doreen ;)
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q16 - Editorialist: Some people propose

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:22 pm

You're not the only one who gets turned around on a question like this! The LSAT writers know that this is challenging and exploit this construct often.

If the question stem reads, "Each of the following, if true, would weaken the editorialist's argument EXCEPT:" then you are to eliminate every answer choice that undermines the argument and select the remaining answer choice. Theoretically, that means your answer will either strengthen the argument or be irrelevant to the argument - this is probably what you weren't looking out for.

Answer choice (E) does weaken the argument by providing a counter point to the final criticism - that the tax increase would reduce the number of energy production jobs. According to answer choice (E), we might still lose those jobs but the new jobs created by the government would more than compensate for those job losses.

The conclusions says the tax increase will do more harm than good.

(A) undermines by providing a positive effect associated with the tax increase.
(B) undermines by providing a positive effect associated with the tax increase.
(C) is irrelevant. How the tax increase is distributed across various energy sources doesn't tell us anything about whether it will be a benefit or drawback.
(D) undermines by providing a positive effect associated with the tax increase.
(E) undermines by providing a positive effect associated with the tax increase.
 
walkerdoreen07
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 17
Joined: February 17th, 2010
 
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: PT 41 S3 Q16 raise revenue and encourage conservation...

by walkerdoreen07 Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:37 pm

thanks....i have to work on EXCEPT question
 
jvillegas
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: January 08th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q16 - Editorialist: Some people propose

by jvillegas Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:50 pm

In writing out the argument core, I had:

a+b+c --> tax increase on the country's energy sources would do more harm than good

(a) higher energy costs would decrease the country's competitiveness
(b) higher transportation costs would unfairly burden families
(c) lower demand for energy would reduce number of energy jobs

I easily eliminated answer choices (D) and (E) because (D) addressed (b) above and answer choice (E) addressed (c) above. I had a more difficult time eliminating answer choices (A) and (B). Even though they provide positive effects associated with the tax increase, they did not seem to directly weaken the argument in my opinion. Is simply providing more evidence of good effects considered weakening the argument?
 
cunseth
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 2
Joined: August 27th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q16 - Editorialist: Some people propose

by cunseth Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:47 am

The previous explanations don't actually suffice because we haven't actually discovered a reason to not select (B) besides the very general, "this has a positive effect."

The truth is, both (B) and (C) could have neutral effects if not for a very crucial line in the prompt: "Many families would be unfairly burdened with high transportation costs."

If higher gas prices lead to less driving and if that driving is "nonessential", this it is not burdensome to give up the nonessential driving in order to reduce costs.

So (B) actually does weaken the argument's specific mention of the family burden MORE than (C) does. And if you look back on the question, you realize that (C) attacks no part of the premises or conclusion.
 
cck2_waikato
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 5
Joined: February 28th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q16 - Editorialist: Some people propose

by cck2_waikato Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:24 pm

I was choosing between B and C.

C was obviously irrelevant (not weakening or strengthening). But I thought B supported the premises so I chose B.

Higher prices -> people do less nonessential driving -> reduce demand for energy -> reduce jobs.
To me it was like supporting (strengthening) the arguement.

I know in LSAT there is only 1 correct answer, but is it possible there is 1 answer that strengths and 1 answer that doesn't do anything (irrelevant), so we pick the best?

Can someone please help? Thanks :)
 
christine.defenbaugh
Thanks Received: 585
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 536
Joined: May 17th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q16 - Editorialist: Some people propose

by christine.defenbaugh Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:09 pm

Thanks for posting cck2_waikato!

I can absolutely see how it would be tempting to think (B) supported the argument here. But let's step back for a moment and think about what it means to support the premises.

Let's say you have the argument:

    PREMISE: All boys like sports
    CONCLUSION: Therefore, Andy likes sports

The gap in the argument is that we are assuming that Andy is a boy! So, to support the argument, or strengthen it, we might say that Andy IS a boy, or perhaps that it is likely that Andy is a boy.

But what about a statement that a recent study showed that every boy interviewed did, indeed, like sports. Does that support the argument? Well, it doesn't help our big yawning gap. It's boosting up the premise. But we already know the premise is true! We are required to accept the premise when we evaluate the argument. If we don't accept the premise, then we are essentially trying to evaluate the truth of the argument, rather than evaluate the logic as the argument moves from accepted-premise to debated-conclusion!

This is the reason that "premise booster" answers are incorrect on assumption and strengthen questions. They don't actually strengthen the argument, because they 'boost' the premise, which is something that you already know to be true.

In this example, (B) might support the idea that demand for energy is reduced. But since we already know that to be true, this support doesn't actually support the argument.

So, this part of the answer choice doesn't actually strengthen - like any premise booster, it doesn't do anything at all! But that doesn't mean the answer choice is wholly irrelevant. The first clause of (B) gives us something more useful: that the tax increase will lead to a cleaner environment. That's a big fat PLUS for the tax increase!

Any plus for the tax increase damages the argument that the tax increase will do more harm than good! So (B) does weaken the argument once we focus on the first half of the sentence, instead of the second half!

In a Weaken EXCEPT question you will always have four weakeners, and one answer that is either a strengthener or irrelevant. You can rest assured that you will never have two answer choices where one is irrelevant and the other is a strengthener and you have to choose - so if you ever feel that you are faced with that, you need to completely reassess your analysis of the answers!

Does that help clear things up a bit?