Q18 - All anarchist novels have two objectionable characteri

[lukas.marko]

I picked D, the correct answer, but I'm having a hard time understanding why E is incorrect.

It seems E's principle would allow the conclusion to be justified as well, because all anarchist novels fall under its conditions (wholesale violence + 1 other objectionable characteristic).

Of course D is more limited in scope to the argument's conclusion by mentioning "cause society more harm than good" but I thought Principle support questions, much like Sufficient Assumption questions, can go beyond the scope of the question as long as they are correct?

[chike_eze]

The correct answer to this question hinges on the sufficient condition that guarantees a ban.

Anarchist novel is a novel with two characteristics -- subversive outlook SO and wholesale violence WV.

If novel has SO and WV and harm > good then ban novel

Note that all answer choices refer to 'novel' not 'anarchist novel'. Therefore, the right answer must include all three sufficient conditions.

Correct = (D) SO + WV + harm > good --> ban

(E) WV + ban --> other objectionable xteristic

[ptewarie]

Precisely.
I solved this by doing a quick scan of the answer choices and I saw that all of them started with the word "novel" and not "anarchist" novel. The word "novel" alone would apply to ALL novels, of which we have no information.

That said, we know that
if Anarchist Novel--> 2 characteristics
if NOT 2 caharacteristics--> NOT ANARCHIST novel.

So whatever answer choice, we choose, it must specify that the "novel" has 2 characteristics( NOT 1, but 2, notice also word "and).

Answer choice
a. Mentions only 1 characteristic, so we have no clue whether we are speaking about an Anarchist novel(in this case we aren't)

b. Again, only 1 characteristic

c. Again, only 1 characteristic ( the more "harm than good" is NOT a quality of all anarchist novels)

d. BINGO! 2 characteristics, and mentions all parts of stimulus

e. Only 1 characteristic.

This entire problem is solved in 30 seconds. Easy, move on. All you need to do is recognize the sufficient/necessary condition and note that they are talking about "novels" in all Answer choices, not anarchist novels. Those are 2 separate things.
Also, please don't make the mistake of thinking AND and OR in the neccesary portion are the same.

IE: A--> B AND C

then if you ONLY have B you do not get A or if you ONLY have C you do not get A. The necessary portion is the "MUST" part, so if all conditions aren't met, sufficient cannot be true!

[griffin3575]

I disagree with the above posters, respectfully of course.

Eliminating answer choices simply because they do not contain the two characteristics of an anarchist novel could lead you astray. Take the following analogy as an example:

Gary is tall(T) and skinny(S). Therefore, it is permissible to punch(P) Gary if you see him.

Now think about which one of these would guarantee the conclusion:


a) if someone is tall, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
b) if someone is skinny, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
c) if someone is both tall and skinny, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
d) If someone is tall or skinny, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
e) if you see someone who is skinny or tall, it is permissible to punch them if you see them

Think about these statements in their conditional forms

a) T-->P
b) S-->P
c) T + S--> P
d) T or S---> P
e) P---> T or S

Notice that the conclusion that we need to get to is "it is permissible to punch Gary" or P. We know that Gary is skinny and we know that Gary is tall. Thus, a) b) c) and d) would all substantiate the conclusion and be correct!

The fact that answers a) b) and d) don't contain both of Gary's characteristics is not grounds for dismissing them. We know Gary is tall, therefore a principle that states T---> P is all we need to guarantee the conclusion holds.

However, take a look at e). Notice that it is the REVERSE of the principal that we want!

So, back to #18. Let's look at the answer choices.

a) SO + ~WV--> ~Permissible.
Via the contrapositive: P --> ~SO or WV
This is the revere of what we want! We want to be able to conclude P, and having P as the conditional trigger does not get us there.

b) has a detail creep of "more good than harm" when the stimulus talks of "more harm than good". But notice that had b) stated "more harm than good", it would be the correct answer.

WV +H>G---> P.
Yes! we know that anarchist novels depict WV and H>G, therefore it would guarantee the conclusion of P. The fact that b) does not contain SO is insufficient grounds for elimination.

c) Permissible ONLY IF subversive outlook + more harm than good. Again, this is the reverse of what we want! The fact that c) does not contain WV is not appropriate grounds for dismissal.

e) Again, is the reverse of what we want

d) Notice that d) does indeed contains WV, SO and H>G. d) says:

WV + SO + H>V---> P.


Perfect, this completely proves the conclusion. But notice had d) been
WV +H>O ---> P or SO + H>V---> P
it would also be equally correct.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Absolutely stellar breakdownn Griffin3575!

Your analysis of what we need (and don't need) is spot on. Principles often dress as Sufficient Assumptions, and they often follow the pattern If (premise) then (conclusion). But they don't necessarily have to contain every bit of the premises to justify the argument - any part of the premise will do, if it guarantees the whole conclusion.

As a result, while it's nice that (D) has the elements of 1) two characteristics and 2) harm>good, it could have still be correct only pointing out a single characteristic. In fact, I would even argue that (D) does not have all the premises, as it applies to any two characteristics - and that makes it much broader than our stimulus. And the rule applies to all novels, not just anarchist novels - so again, more broad than we need.

But that's ok! Principles dressed as Sufficient Assumptions are allowed to be overbroad, as long as they get us to the conclusion that we want! (D) does that!

(A), (C), and (E) all translate to situations where you are not allowed to ban things - but we want to get to saying it is permissible to ban things.

Griffin3575, you're right that (B) makes a language change by bringing up the new idea "more good than harm", but I'll quibble with this:

But notice that had b) stated "more harm than good", it would be the correct answer.

WV +H>G---> P.
Yes! we know that anarchist novels depict WV and H>G, therefore it would guarantee the conclusion of P. The fact that b) does not contain SO is insufficient grounds for elimination.

Notice that the stimulus said it was permissible if the book did more harm than good. (B) not only changes to more good than harm, but it also shifts to discussing the ban itself - i.e., if the ban does more good than harm.

But I'll agree with you that if (B) had read "more harm than good" and that had been describing the novel itself, instead of the ban, then it would be correct!

Once again, excellent breakdown! Keep up the great work!

[jewels0602]

I disagree with the above posters, respectfully of course.

Eliminating answer choices simply because they do not contain the two characteristics of an anarchist novel could lead you astray. Take the following analogy as an example:

Gary is tall(T) and skinny(S). Therefore, it is permissible to punch(P) Gary if you see him.

Now think about which one of these would guarantee the conclusion:


a) if someone is tall, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
b) if someone is skinny, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
c) if someone is both tall and skinny, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
d) If someone is tall or skinny, it is permissible to punch them if you see them
e) if you see someone who is skinny or tall, it is permissible to punch them if you see them

Think about these statements in their conditional forms

a) T-->P
b) S-->P
c) T + S--> P
d) T or S---> P
e) P---> T or S

Hey, thank you for this very helpful post.

I am still very confused about E (on both this example and the test).

For the example that griffin puts forth, I don't understand how the conditional form for E) is P-->T or S.

I thought it would be the same as D), T or S-->P.
The "if" statement is before seeing someone T or S, yet how does it follow the arrow?

I have a feeling it has something to do with the phrase "if you see someone" but I'm not grasping how this plays a role.

So, similarly, I can't grasp why E is wrong in the actual LSAT test (and how its a reversal).

Is it because E is already assuming in the sufficient condition that its permissible to ban a novel that depicts wholesale violence? Would it potentially be the correct answer if it said it is permissible to ban a novel only if that novel depicts wholesale violence and has at least one other objectionable characteristic?


Any guidance on how to go about this would be SUPER helpful-- I've been trying to wrap my head around this for a while and it's just not clicking.

[kyuya]

Weird stimulus here I thought. Not hard to grasp, but the jump from the premises to the conclusion was one where I couldn't really grasp what the assumption was being made. Typically here I would move to the answer choices and look to eliminate.

The argument:

Anarch novels 2 quest. char. ---> subversive outlook and depiction of wholesale violence.

Therefore, its permissible to ban any anarchist novel that would do more harm than good to society.

(A) This seems to be in contradiction to the stimulus. If something has a subversive outlook but not wholesale violence, it would still be possible to ban it. If it causes more harm than good to society, then we would be able to ban it - making it permissible, and against this answer choice. Eliminate.

(B) I'd leave this and move on.

(C) What makes me think this answer is incorrect is the ONLY IF part. The stimulus does tell us a circumstance where it would be okay to ban certain novels, but that does not also mean that other novels could not be banned as well.

For example, according to the stimulus, a depiction of wholesale violence and doing more harm than good to society would be sufficient to get rid of this answer choice.

(D) I would keep this and move on.

(E) This is wrong for similar reasons that (C) is wrong. It makes things too restrictive unnecessarily. It hopes you draw a faulty inference from the information provided in the stimulus.

ONLY IF once again, leads into criteria that is too narrow. Again, our stimulus gives us a circumstance where we can ban a certain type of novel, however it is not the ONLY TYPES. The condition of it having one other objectionable characteristic is too restrictive and ultimately makes this answer choice incorrect .

Okay, so now I'd go back to (B) and (D).

(B) I think what is said in this answer choice is TRUE, but doesn't act as a great principle. It is not specific enough to anarchist novels. Again, just like (E) and (C) it is presenting us a scenario that would be possible, but is not a great representation of the argument shown in the stimulus. For example, are any defining characteristics of anarchist novels shown here? Not really. Yes, we see "whoelsale violence" and "more harm that good to society", but can't any novel have wholesale violence and do more harm than good to society? Why would we have to be talking about anarchist novels? We wouldn't, and I think this answer choice is ultimately too broad in scope to be the correct answer.

Okay so on to the right answer.

(D) If we write it out conditionally, we have:

novel has two or more objectionable characteristics (such as anarchist novels, but not necessarily anarchist novels -- remember, other genre's could fill this requirement as well) --> it is permissible to ban a novel that would cause society more harm than good.

This covers the requirements for an anarchist novel, and what could be done to it. Our best answer choice.

[AnnaC659]

Hi there,

Still after reading all the above thread, I cannot understand why (E) is wrong.
I chose (E) at first and upon review understand why (D) may be more suitable.
But I cannot see how (E) is wrong.

I see (E) as:
Permissible to ban novel with wholesale violence ---> that novel has at least one other objectionable characteristic

And indeed according to the stimulus, ALL anarchist novels do have another objectionable characteristic: subversive outlook.
Hence with (E) it is justified to conclude that it is permissible to ban any anarchist novel.



Help!

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

To prove “idea X”, you need a conditional that has “idea X” on the right side.

____ ---> idea X

If you have a rule that puts “idea X” on the left side, it’s automatic garbage.
idea X ---> ____

If you think about what you just wrote … you nailed how (E) looks as a conditional
Permissible to ban novel with wholesale violence ---> that novel has at least one other objectionable characteristic


And then you said, “Since we know the right side is true, we can conclude that the left side is true”.

And indeed according to the stimulus, ALL anarchist novels do have another objectionable characteristic: subversive outlook.
Hence with (E) it is justified to conclude that it is permissible to ban any anarchist novel.


What? No, we can’t! That’s the whole point of conditional logic. We can only go from left to right.

If I gave you a rule that said,
Famous NBA player --> makes 7 figures a year

And then we said, “We know Anna makes 7 figures a year”.
Could we thusly conclude that “Anna is a famous NBA player”?

Of course not. Conditional rules don’t allow us to read right to left. The right side can be true without the left side needing to be true.

When you’re doing Principle questions and Sufficient Assumption questions, it’s important to remember that the idea you’re trying to prove in the conclusion should be on the RIGHT SIDE of the arrow.

Since we’re trying to prove “it is permissible to ban”, we need a rule that says
_____ ----> it is permissible to ban


(A) ____ ----> impermissible to ban (nope)

(B) ___ ---> permissible to ban (keep it)

(C) Permissible to ban ---> _____ (nope)

(D) ___ ---> Permissible to ban (keep it)

(E) Permissible to ban ---> ____ (nope)

By understanding that a rule that would allow us to prove “X” requires that we see “---> X”, we can quickly eliminate three of the five answers here, without even needing to dwell on the other half of what they’re saying.

Hope this helps.