Q19 - Many people change their wills

[ocho34]

For some reason, I don't see why the conclusion is flawed. Is it because the phrase "...there would not be a problem to begin with" is too strong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I can see why this one is tough...

The argument puts forward a problem and then follows that with a solution to the problem, and then concludes that the solution will solve the problem.

Here's the issue with this argument. There are two problems introduced.

1) Failure to date wills makes it difficult for the executor to know which will is the most recent.
2) The executor does not know whether the will drawn up last has ever been found.

The solution put forward at the end of the argument would solve issue #1 but would not solve issue #2, because even if you signed and dated every will, how would you know whether the will drawn up last had ever been found?

Correct Answer
So the flaw in this argument is that it treats a partial solution as though it were a complete solution, answer choice (A).

Incorrect Answers
(B) may be true, but is not a flaw committed in the argument. The argument does describe a problem (the inability of the executor not knowing whether all of the wills have been found nor which will is the most recent one), but never addresses "adverse affects" of the problem.
(C) is not true as responsibility for solving the problem is not transferred--it remains the responsibility of people who create wills.
(D) asserts the wrong conclusion. The argument is about whether a solution would solve a specific problem, not about whether the proposed solution would be a change for the better.
(E) is not true. The information (that undated wills can create a problem for the executor) is available at the time of the action.

[randitect]

I am stuck between A and B... I understand that the solution proposed is not a complete solution, as the last will drawn up may still be lost.

However, I chose B (twice) due to the final sentence which concludes "for then there would not be a problem to begin with". As B proposes, the conclusion states that the problem would be prevented, when in fact, its adverse effects would just be contained... Or this is how I see it, at least.

*Detailed* clarification would be fantastic. Thank you!

[Mab6q]

I think the problem with B is that the solution put forward by the author would not necessarily have adverse effects, just that it would not solve the issue completely because it would only address half of the problem. So, it doesn't address the real flaw in the argument . A, however, states it very clearly. I also missed this the first time.

[Alvanith.law]

I guess the problem with B is that the "containment of the adverse effects that the problem might cause" is never mentioned in the argument. The key is to know what is the problem and not to confuse the problem with its adverse effects.

The argument says the problem is that the executor will find a hard time to know which will is the most recent or whether the most recent has been found. This is not to say that the executor's hard time to know or to find is the adverse effects of the problem. Rather, the executor's problem mentioned is the problem itself. Actually the argument does not say anything about the adverse effects the problem might cause.

Accordingly, the solution put forward in the conclusion addresses the problem itself directly, i.e. to date the wills and thus to prevent the problem from happening in the first place.

I guess if there is anything about the adverse effects of the problem, it could be something like the disputes between the beneficiaries of the wills and etc. These adverse effects are derived from the careless practice of the people who change their wills.

Hope I understand this right and hope it helps.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I guess the problem with B is that the "containment of the adverse effects that the problem might cause" is never mentioned in the argument. The key is to know what is the problem and not to confuse the problem with its adverse effects.

Exactly right, nice work Alvanith.law! I also edited the explanation above to include a discussion of the incorrect answers. Hope that helps others work through this tricky question.

[jones.mchandler]

So in the Cambridge packets, this question is right after PT 10 S1 Q13, where the answer is not a "perfect fit"'and brings in some outside term ("wisdom") in the correct answer choice. On that board the answer choice is described as "not a perfect fit."

I'm having a very, very difficult time coming to terms with how answer choice D is incorrect after doing the above problem.

No, the stimulus does not say anything about the proposed solution being a "change for the better," however, it's difficult to not interpret a SOLUTION to a problem as something that is at least attempting to be a "change for the better."

It seems that the proposed solution could possibly introduce new, negative consequences in the process of correctly dating wills for the executor.

I'm just having trouble reconciling when an answer choice is and is not "the right fit," and when it's legitimate to bring in terms that seem seriously out of scope.

Signed,

A guy who's seriously butthurt that he missed both these questions

[maryadkins]

I actually am also okay with "change for the better" in (D). I don't like (D) because it's not a logical flaw in this argument. Did you think of that as the flaw? That maybe there are reasons you WOULDN'T want to indicate in your will which will it is replacing? I can't think of a possible scenario where that would be the case...

That's the problem here. I think what you want to take from this question is the reminder to ID the flaw FIRST then look for a match.

[WaltGrace1983]

I think (B) and (D) can both be eliminated because of the "adverse effects" discussion. However, I eliminated it in a different way then simply saying that is not correct because "adverse effects" are not discussed.

The way that I see it is that the argument defines the problem, consisting of two parts: (1) don't know which will is most recent and (2) don't know if last will has been found.

In (B), we don't care if there are any adverse effects to solving the problem or not. Maybe this system is extremely ineffective or maybe the Earth will implode if we do it. That doesn't matter. This is so because the conclusion is only about this one, particular, problem. It says "there would not be a problem to begin with." I think it would be different if the conclusion was "there would not be any problems."

In (D), we have basically the same thing.

(E) is not true. The information (that undated wills can create a problem for the executor) is available at the time of the action.

Matt, can you explain what you mean by this? I was reading (E) as saying that this action (dating wills / stating what will it supersedes) would be based on the information of the following: the date and knowledge of the previous will superseded. However, isn't (E) just basically restating the problem while the argument is actually stating the proposal will FIX the problem?

[ohthatpatrick]

Unfortunately, Matt was not assigned to reply to this post.

Fortunately, I agree with all your thoughts.

(B) and (D) are definitely delving into irrelevance by speaking about the extended consequences of the proposed action in the conclusion.

There's only one consequence of the proposed action that means anything to us: does it / doesn't it solve the original problem.

And, yes, I would match up the wording of (E) with the proposed action in the conclusion: dating your will and writing the date of the most recent will it supersedes.

So I agree with Matt that (E) is simply untrue, but for the reasons you stated. When someone would go to date their will and write the date of the most recent will, that person WOULD have available information.

Nice tweaks.