Q19 - Educator: It has been argued

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

In this principle question we need to justify the argument contained in the stimulus with a general rule in the answer choices that will bridge a gap between the evidence and the conclusion in the argument.

The evidence is that the vote of any individual is much more likely to determine organizational policy by influencing the election of an officer than by influencing the result of a direct vote.

The conclusion that is reached is that the organization should make decisions about important issues by the election of an officer rather than direct vote.

A principle that says that an organization should make decisions in a way that will maximize an individual's influence would work - best expressed in answer choice (E).

(A) is out of scope. The issue is not about one person's vote weighing more than any other.
(B) is out of scope. The issue is not evaluating outcomes, but rather selecting the mode of making decisions.
(C) supports the conclusion but does not rely on the evidence and so cannot be said to be a principle that could be applicable.
(D) is out of scope. Again the issue is not which decisions are right or wrong, but rather how should those decisions be made.
(E) bridges the gap between the evidence and the conclusion and is the correct answer. If maximizing the individual's power is the goal, and we know that the individual is more likely to have an impact on the election of an officer, then the conclusion follows that the organization should make decisions by election of an officer.


#officialexplanation

[haeaznboiyoung]

I originally read this question as a Strengthen.. or a Principle-Strengthen. Is that not true? Should question stems like this be more leaning towards an Assumption question? My reading of it as a Strengthen led me to C...

Also, I'm not seeing clearly where your conclusion came from. Did you reword it from the line of "This would not, however, be the right way to decide these matters?" Your conclusion and evidence seem to be quite similar.

Thanks!

[patrice.antoine]

Bump.

I'm having difficulty understanding what the stimulus is saying.

[maryadkins]

This is a tricky stimulus to decipher for many people--which may be in part because it's a bit counterintuitive.

The conclusion of the argument is that electing officers is better than a direct vote. Why? Because a single person's vote is going to have MORE influence through the election method than through the direct vote method. That seems a bit odd to many people because that's not how we commonly think about the difference between electing people to vote for us versus taking a direct vote, in which each person votes on the issue himself or herself. It seems like a direct vote would give a single individual more influence over policy. But no--that's the opposite of what the argument tells us in the premise, and what we, therefore, take as true.

Re-read the stimulus with this in mind and let me know if it's still unclear!

[tzyc]

Since it starts with "It has been argued that..." and later it says "this would not however be the right way to decide these matters", I thought the conclusion is not professional organization, but members should vote for officers (individual).
But I think this contradicts what Matt says, so I'm kind of confused...

[vania_apple]

I'm also struggling with answer choice E.

Couldn't E also 'maximise' the power of members of the organisation to influence the result of a direct vote? I don't really see how this answer choice justifies election over direct vote.

Thanks in advance.

[DChen8492]

reply to vania_apple

The educators argument says that it gives more power to the voter by selecting election officers vs directly voting. E would help connect the dots because it says that voting policy should give more power to the voters. That's what I thought when I was solving the issue.

[ganbayou]

Why is the vote of any given individual more likely to determine org policy by influencing the election of an officer than by influencing the result of a direct vote?
And how would it maximize the power of each member?

Thank you,

[maryadkins]

Good questions! It doesn't make any sense, does it?

These questions are precisely why this problem is so difficult. It is counterintuitive to think that a person would have MORE influence by voting for an officer than by voting for an issue. But that's what the argument says, and so we take it at face value.

This problem, in this way, is a good lesson in not questioning the validity of premises that are given to you—if it's a premise, it's true, regardless of whether you think that's how it works in the real world or not!

[pacificbonito]

I'm not really getting it, but really want to know is this:

Do you (LSAT experts, not students please!) feel that this is a rather crummy and deceptive question?

I do not see how the first sentence says anything much at all - 'it has been argued..." There's nothing to say it is a good argument, or even the issue under consideration that precipitated the argument wasn't some trivial whining that hardly bears legitimate review. Although that MAY be a stretch

That the author goes on to say such a direct-vote policy idea is not so good and that individual voters would come to exert more control through representatives (or elected official, whatever they are) does not seem to provide tough evidence speaking towards a desire or even legitimate concern of individual power. In the real-world, 'Educator' could be playing the devils advocate as part of some nefarious scheme, or just schilling for his/her monied interests.

But since this is the LSAT, those last two considerations are likely invalid. I just don't see why C is so readily considered 'out of scope', wouldn't the scope be reliant on assumption about motivation, and so to reiterate, what basis for such assumptions exist?

Why couldn't 'Educator' be working towards a more competent organization, and simply paying lip-service to the direct vote crowd?

Maybe 'Educator' feels like a lot of military leaders do, that democracy is inefficient, and while it has it's place, sometimes you need a leader to lead, not just ask your opinion.

I just don't see how E is so far superior. Actually I don't think it is at all, but respect the boards wisdom, and they say otherwise. Why?

here's my thoughts:

A. No basis for this.
B. A good answer, but we are not talking about elections, but voting. Scope was given as the reason, is 'election' the reason?
C. I think this is a fine answer. I know there is no basis for C's assertions, but it does justify, doesn't it?
D. No Basis. Out of Scope.
E. No Basis. It would reconcile, or justify, but how so better then C?

Maybe I have just read too many "Politician: ... what's the flaw questions".
Ah, I have to accept the educators reasoning as sincere as well as truthful don't I? Bah!

Is it not possible that the very reason direct voting would be less influential is because the majority do in fact lack the time to master the relevant information? Raising dues was one of the issues... maybe the electorate are paid so as to have the time to govern?

It just seems to make more politically correct sense then anything else. I would never take a vote out of all the students at a given college, I would only consult the smart ones. And therein lies my bias.

Any new insights would be greatly appreciated.

[tommywallach]

Hey Pacific,

Just so you know, we only respond specifically to students with blue/green names on the forums (those are people who are taking classes or are purchasing our books), so you'll be waiting for student responses. (That said, there are very few LSAT questions that I think are unfair, and that includes this one. Remember, you're being asked to pick the best answer, not a perfect answer, and many of the arguments are bad on purpose, so that's part of the game.) Good luck!

-t

[chrislmurray2121]

I'm not really getting it, but really want to know is this:

Do you (LSAT experts, not students please!) feel that this is a rather crummy and deceptive question?

I do not see how the first sentence says anything much at all - 'it has been argued..." There's nothing to say it is a good argument, or even the issue under consideration that precipitated the argument wasn't some trivial whining that hardly bears legitimate review. Although that MAY be a stretch

That the author goes on to say such a direct-vote policy idea is not so good and that individual voters would come to exert more control through representatives (or elected official, whatever they are) does not seem to provide tough evidence speaking towards a desire or even legitimate concern of individual power. In the real-world, 'Educator' could be playing the devils advocate as part of some nefarious scheme, or just schilling for his/her monied interests.

But since this is the LSAT, those last two considerations are likely invalid. I just don't see why C is so readily considered 'out of scope', wouldn't the scope be reliant on assumption about motivation, and so to reiterate, what basis for such assumptions exist?

Why couldn't 'Educator' be working towards a more competent organization, and simply paying lip-service to the direct vote crowd?

Maybe 'Educator' feels like a lot of military leaders do, that democracy is inefficient, and while it has it's place, sometimes you need a leader to lead, not just ask your opinion.

I just don't see how E is so far superior. Actually I don't think it is at all, but respect the boards wisdom, and they say otherwise. Why?

here's my thoughts:

A. No basis for this.
B. A good answer, but we are not talking about elections, but voting. Scope was given as the reason, is 'election' the reason?
C. I think this is a fine answer. I know there is no basis for C's assertions, but it does justify, doesn't it?
D. No Basis. Out of Scope.
E. No Basis. It would reconcile, or justify, but how so better then C?

Maybe I have just read too many "Politician: ... what's the flaw questions".
Ah, I have to accept the educators reasoning as sincere as well as truthful don't I? Bah!

Is it not possible that the very reason direct voting would be less influential is because the majority do in fact lack the time to master the relevant information? Raising dues was one of the issues... maybe the electorate are paid so as to have the time to govern?

It just seems to make more politically correct sense then anything else. I would never take a vote out of all the students at a given college, I would only consult the smart ones. And therein lies my bias.

Any new insights would be greatly appreciated.

In case any future students have similar qualms about this question:

All of this stuff is great critical thinking, but in a sense it is far more detailed than what is required to answer this question. The motivations of the 'Educator' are not relevant here, we should take the stimulus at face value and try not to make assumptions that aren't directly supported by it. Essentially, this was my thought process on the way to the correct answer:

So the first sentence introduces an idea, that decisions in this organisation should be made by a direct vote. Important things to notice are the phrase 'it has been argued' which suggests to me that the author is likely to try and counter the point being made here. The second thing to note is that no evidence to support this proposal is given. The second sentence provides us with the author's response to the initial idea (signified by 'however') and we are given the fact (and it is important we treat it as a fact on the LSAT) that individuals are more likely to have influence if they're voting for an officer rather than on a direct policy. We are looking for an answer that justifies this particular idea. Anything that doesn't mention the influence of members with respect to voting in the organisation is extraneous and incorrect.

C does not mention this. The Educator is not discussing how the organisation is run, in terms of how effective the decision-making is. Rather, he/she is discussing the metric by which the decisions are made in the first place. It does not matter whether the organisation is being run into the ground, because this is not what the argument is concerned with. E) is correct because it deals directly with the argument made by the Educator, by bridging the gap in the stimulus. The stimulus assumes that the increased ability of an individual to determine organisational policy is a good thing. The principle contained within E) confirms this and therefore fills this gap.

- Chris

[Yit HanS103]

I chose C.
I read the question as a principle support question- my understanding for this type of questions was to support (str) the conclusion of the stimulus.
But I see in your explanations you are bridging the gap, like an assumption question.
I need help understanding the difference between assumption vs principle support (that acts more like an strengthen for the conclusion), so I don't make this mistake in the future.
THANK YOU!