Q22 - Our failure to attract new listeners

[samuelfbaron]

Could someone aid in deciphering why (B) is the credited choice?

(B) seems to present the choices of making curtains or buying blinds as two mutually exclusive options. The prompt doesn't present two mutually exclusive options. I'm really confused as to how this the credited response.

[ohthatpatrick]

This was a really difficult problem, based on how far the answer choices strayed from the original.

Your central concern with (B) was that it presents a mutually exclusive option, while the original didn't seem to, so let's discuss that first.

The original says that they are forced to choose between X and Y.

You can't choose both with that sort of language.

Of course, what makes that harder to realize is that the choices are
- classical only
and
- classical + some airtime to other genres

Those are binary choices. If you devote some airtime to popular genres, you are no longer classical only.

But, it's easy to think of this choice as being non-mutually exclusive if we incorrectly hear "classical, popular, or a mix of the two" as the actual decision.

Now let's talk about how we might break down the logic of the original argument.

==
i. We must choose between X and Y
ii. If we choose Y, situation Z results.
iii. Situation Z is unacceptable.
Conc: Thus, we should choose X.

Here, X and Y were "include popular genres" and "classical only".
Situation Z was "our station risks going out of business".

Going through the answers, I would be looking for a few signature ingredients:
We must make a choice between two options. We need a conditional statement about one of those options that results in something unacceptable. The conclusion must select the other option.

(A) The conclusion for (A) makes it a non-starter. (A)'s conclusion is a conditional statement. The original's conclusion was not.

(B) This has our choice, our conditional statement about one of those options, our notion that the outcome of that conditional is not acceptable, and the conclusion that we should pick the other choice.

(C) This is wrong because the initial choice is X, Y, or both. Furthermore, there's no conditional statement.

(D) We have a choice to be made. We have a conditional statement about one of the choices. What we DON'T have is a statement that says the outcome of that conditional statement is unacceptable. Finally, the conclusion says we should choose some third option (blinds), when the original two options were "buying more fabric" and "making valances".

(E) This is pretty close, but again, it has a conditional statement as a conclusion. The original did not.

Hope this helps.

[Dkrajewski30]

Great response, Patrick. I got this one right, but looking back at it, B does indeed seem to be an imperfect match of the original argument. I realize that's to be expected with parallel questions, particularly when you're asked to parallel a valid argument.

Anyhow, I wonder what would make B a perfect match. I was thinking that if it qualified its conclusion by stating that it's best to make the curtains 'for now', then that would capture the original argument more completely, as it would be open as to whether one could choose both of the options, while at the same time capturing the point in the original that between A and B, one can either do just A, or both A and B. In answer choice B, it actually states that one should do B over A in order to avoid the negative implication of A. By contrast, in the original, it states that one should do both A and B in order to avoid the negative implication of doing just A.

I know we shouldn't get caught up in making imperfect right answers foolproof, as it's more important to get an understanding of why such and such imperfect answer is right and why the significantly more imperfect alternatives are wrong. I just wonder whether my conception of what would make B 'better' is something the MLSAT experts would agree upon.

[aznriceboi17]

Just to double check, the initial sentences for A, D, E by themselves don't preclude the possibility of selecting both options, right? So for example with A, the choice presented by "We should either buy blinds for the windows or make full-length curtains" leaves open the possibility of buying blinds and making curtains? It seems that 'Either X or Y' should allow for X AND Y but I've seen LSAT answer choices often try to pass 'Either X or Y' as 'X exclusive or Y' that it's making me worried.

[ohthatpatrick]

In context, I think the language in (A), (B), (D), and (E) is meant to be interpreted as EXCLUSIVE "or".

You only get to pick one.

Partly, that's reinforced by the fact that in (C), they switch to the more open language of "X, Y, or both".

Partly, it's reinforced by using "eitherX or Y" vs. X or Y.

I don't think that "either" necessarily implies exclusivity but it helps to reinforce that sense here.

Another part of the context is that you're deciding on two different options for the same window. It offends common sense to think that they are also considering having BOTH blinds and curtains on the window.

When you're deciding between two courses of action, it's implied that by taking one course of action, you are not taking the other.

I do agree that this is frustratingly "fuzzy" when in Games and other conditional logic circumstances we are trained to think of "or" as inclusive (at least one of these must occur).

But think of the different context of "or" when you get a Games rule like:
If Paul is selected, then Bob or Andrew is also selected.

Here, we're really being told of a minimum prerequisite .. we must satisfy the rule by having Bob or Andrew, but once we've satisfied the rule by having one of them there's no reason we can't also have the other.

The context of the original argument and of all five answer choices is "we have to decide either to do A or to do B." That context feels like mutual exclusivity.

So I agree that technically all five answer choices allow for the possibility of both A and B. But if you want your brain to have an easier time with this question, I would relax your picky-LSAT-brain a little bit and engage your real-life-brain a little more.

(That's often the delicate, frustrating balance of picking the 'best' answer on this test)

[emilynotini]

I tried to break this argument down as simply as possible because I had an extremely difficult time understanding it. I was choosing between A and B, and chose the incorrect answer A. Upon review, I can finally see why B is correct.

The argument is as follows:

1: We must choose between X (devote airtime to popular genres of music) and Y (stick with classical music).
2: Sticking with Y did not work, so we cannot choose Y.
3: Therefore, we must choose X.

Trying to follow this pattern of reasoning, we can evaluate the answer choices:

A states:
1: We must choose between X (blinds) and Y (full-length curtains).
2: X would not work.
3: Therefore, we must choose Y.

A is incorrect because instead of concluding that we should choose X, it concludes that we should choose Y.

B, on the other hand:
1: We must choose between X (curtains) and Y (blinds)
2: We should not choose Y
3: Therefore, we should choose X

The pattern of reasoning in B is almost identical to that in the passage if the argument is broken down to this very simple form.

I won't type out the pattern of reasoning in C, D, or E here, but if you apply this to each answer you will see how A is superior.

[dotcameraY685]

Guys, it is SIMPLE!
stimulus has two factors to impact radio producer to make decision: Pay our bill -> going out of business.
Only B provide two factors to make decision between curtain or blind: Windows size -> special order takes time!
Other options just have one factor while making decision between curtain / blind / valances..
A: costy
C: privacy
D: buy fabric
E: look bare
That's it!