lichenrachel
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 22
Joined: July 18th, 2010
 
 
 

Q21 - The proper way to plan

by lichenrachel Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:02 pm

I chose C instead of E, though I felt C didn't exactly meet the point here (the argument does not seem to be about foreseeability of the result of the project). But I don't understand why E is the flaw of the argument. Help needed!
User avatar
 
bbirdwell
Thanks Received: 864
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 803
Joined: April 16th, 2009
 
This post thanked 4 times.
 
 

Re: Q21 - The proper way to plan

by bbirdwell Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:28 pm

As usual, you must first have a clear idea of what the conclusion is, and what the evidence is.

Conclusion:
it's abundantly clear that the space station should not be built. (note the extreme language "abundantly clear")

Premises:
1. projects must have a goal and then a plan for the best way to meet that goal.
2. US space station does not do this because...
3. when Cold War ended, it lost its purpose. New purpose was created, even though there is another way to achieve that purpose.

So, the part of the conclusion that sticks out is the "abundantly clear." Is it really "abundantly clear" that the station should not be built? No. The evidence merely suggests that the station's purpose is not as strong as it once was.

This is essentially what (E) says. The argument says that the station has a shortcoming (weak purpose), and then concludes that it should be built ("fatal").

(C) simply doesn't match the argument. The argument never faults the planners for not foreseeing an event.
I host free online workshop/Q&A sessions called Zen and the Art of LSAT. You can find upcoming dates here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm
User avatar
 
Mab6q
Thanks Received: 31
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 290
Joined: June 30th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q21 - The proper way to plan

by Mab6q Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:07 pm

This question was tough, not because it was hard to identify the argument core but because E states the flaw in such a vague, ambiguous manner. Here's my breakdown:


Conclusion: the space station should not be built.


Intermediate conclusion: the US space station does not conform to the proper way to plan a S project.

Support 1; the proper way to plan a S project is first to decide a goal then to plan the best way to accomplish it.

Support 2: When the cold war ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly crafted on the project, that of conducting limited gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way.

This is obviously a terrible argument. The big gap is that the author assumes that because a S project is not planned the proper way, it should not be built.

A. That would be a source argument, we do not have that here.

B. That would be circular reasoning, where the support and conclusion are the same thing. Not the case here.

C. This could be tempting if we read into it too much. However, we can't escape the fact that the author does not fault planners for not foreseeing the end of the Cold War, but that the project simply should not be built.

D. another common incorrect answer choice on flaw questions, there is not internal contradiction.

E. Admittedly this was very hard for me to understand the first time i read it. E is basically saying that the author concludes that the project should not be built because of original purpose being lost, when in fact all we are given is evidence to show that the original plan was lost ( the short coming).
"Just keep swimming"
 
sonssi13
Thanks Received: 2
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 6
Joined: January 10th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q21 - The proper way to plan

by sonssi13 Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:14 am

I still don't get it why the fact that just showing evidence of the existence of shortcoming is flaw. can't the fact be a enough reason to support the conclusion because of the premise that the proper way is to decide a goal and then to plan the best way to achieve it?? my thought was.. if the project didn't follow the steps, and thus there exists the shortcoming, it can't be the proper way so it is not an extreme argument that space station should not be built

could someone walk me through the reasoning again? thanks
 
MarkR495
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 9
Joined: November 20th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q21 - The proper way to plan

by MarkR495 Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:17 am

I answered (D) on this question, and would appreciate any further help on why my reasoning is incorrect. Here it is:

The author lays down the rules for a proper science project plan, then states that the US space station project is not following this ideal. They then present evidence, that does NOT go against this ideal, i.e., the US space stations original purpose was lost, and a new one was established. Wouldn't purpose, be analogous to goal? If purpose is analogous to goal, then the evidence presented shows a science project with a new goal (conducting limited-gravity experiments), that does not have a plan established yet. This would follow the authors definition of a proper plan: goal -----> plan. So wouldn't the evidence contradict what the author concludes what should be done about the space station being built? That it shouldn't be built because it is not conforming to this ideal.

I guess the author does not state, "If you do not conform to this ideal, then the science project can not be performed." So if the author added this language, would it make it more of a contradiction between evidence and conclusion?

Any help is appreciated!