Q24 - Journalist: Although a recent poll

[jiehaep]

24. (E)
Question Type: Identify a Flaw
The argument assumes that because only 26% of eligible voters are likely to join, and only 16% are likely to donate, the 30% join-or-donate criteria for viability will not be met. But what if those likely to join and those likely to donate are different groups? We would then have 42% support! It is possible to meet the 30% goal with even partial overlap, which is the possibility listed in choice (E).
(A) is out of scope. The condition for viability only requires that the voters be "prepared to support it." Even if this were disregarded, this choice would weaken the conclusion by adding a premise rather than identifying an existing flaw.
(B) is out of scope. The conclusion deals with what is likely/unlikely, not "possible."
(C) is out of scope. The amount of money is irrelevant; the argument is solely based on percentages of support.
(D) is out of scope. The support for the "idea" of a party is irrelevant to its viability based on membership/donation support.

[ebrickm2]

Again, I think my confusion on this answer choice is the result of not understanding the particularity of the question stem wording.

When I read the argument fails to consider, I don't know exactly what how to interpret this.

After reading the stimulus, I saw that they could partially overlap, but based on the wording of the question stem + the wording of E, I just got exasperated and ended up just choosing something inane.

I read E, and it says that they might not be prepared to join the party, I think "well hell, this closes that overlap thing". I'm sure the question stem modifies this in such a way to make it correct, but I just don't think I have full comprehension of the mechanics behind.

Much help is always appreciated. Danka, teacher!

[ohsobecca]

Okay, I'm lost on this question. I agree that one flaw committed here is that the author doesn't account for the fact that there could be some overlap between the 26% supporters and the 16% donors, which would clearly put us over the 30% minimum. However, (E) says the author fails to consider that some of the donors might NOT be prepared to join...to me this seems to be the exact opposite of what we need--that some donors MIGHT BE prepared to join. The only thing I can possibly think of is the "some" are not willing to join, which would still leave enough willing to join and give us the 30%. But that really seems like a stretch to me; if anything I think the author DOES assume that some donors might not be willing to join the party. What am I missing here??

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a classic twist on these identify the flaw questions. Consider it this way.

Suppose I tell you that alligators are reptiles, therefore alligators lay eggs.

What am i assuming... that reptiles lay eggs!

If the question asked you to identify the flaw you could say that the argument

1. takes for granted that reptiles lay eggs.
2. fails to consider that some reptiles do not lay eggs.

Both of these answer choices address the gap in the reasoning.

In this question, the argument assumes that all of those who would donate to the party would be willing to join the party. Since the question stem says "fails to consider" we want the negated assumption (similar to #2 above).

Does that clear this up?

[ocho34]

I am not sure how to interpret the part where it says: "30 percent of eligible voters prepared to support it by either joining it or donating money to it..."

So when the journalist says "either joining...or either donating," is he taking into consideration that there might be an overlap?

I guess either-or implies A or B or both, right? Somehow, I thought that the journalist was saying A or B (but not both) when he said "either joining...or either donating.." That's why I was so confused by answer E)

Could you please clarify the either/or relationship?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

When the stimulus in LR or a constraint in LG says "either A or B will occur," one, the other, or both is implied. Sometimes however, it says "either A or else B will occur." In that instance they do mean one or the other, but not both. Typically in LG they will spell out the "not both" part explicitly at the end of the constraint. If you'd like to see the latter version in LR, check out:

PT21, S2, Q20 - Ann will either

[ptraye]

Okay, I'm lost on this question. I agree that one flaw committed here is that the author doesn't account for the fact that there could be some overlap between the 26% supporters and the 16% donors, which would clearly put us over the 30% minimum. However, (E) says the author fails to consider that some of the donors might NOT be prepared to join...to me this seems to be the exact opposite of what we need--that some donors MIGHT BE prepared to join. The only thing I can possibly think of is the "some" are not willing to join, which would still leave enough willing to join and give us the 30%. But that really seems like a stretch to me; if anything I think the author DOES assume that some donors might not be willing to join the party. What am I missing here??

ocho34, please see my attached pdf.

[tejan.arora]

I got this one wrong, and had difficulty trying to justify E as the right answer because of its twisted wording. But here's what I believe to be the possible explanation to what E is saying. I think that E is absolutely suggesting that there is a separation between donors and people willing to join. E states that only some, and not most, donors will not join the 26% who want to join the party. This suggests that those donors are not already part of the 26% of the people who would like to join. This leaves the possibility open that the rest of the donors, might/could join the party to equal greater than 30% required.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[sumukh09]

I'm at a loss for E is correct too; the stim says you need 30 percent either by donating OR joining. So since there's 16 percent and 26 percent respectively, it's unlikely that an education party is viable in the long run.

Why do we need those who donate to join as E suggests? If 30 percent donate to it then isn't that enough? I'm definitely misunderstanding something but I can't put my finger on what it is.

[yhyuna]

I think E is saying the opposite of what you're saying. It's suggesting that eligible voters who donate (16%) might NOT join (26%).

Here's a possible scenario if that's the case:

1. 10% of eligible voters donate but DO NOT join the party.
2. 20% of eligible voters join the party but DO NOT donate.

In other words, at least some of these voters who donate or join don't do the other. (Also, note how these do not contradict the premises that 16% would be prepared to donate and 26% would like to join)

Combining these 2 facts indeed shows that there can be at least 30% of eligible voters who either joins or donates to the party, which weakens the conclusion. Ultimately, this points out a flaw of the stimulus, which is the assumption that the ppl who join and ppl who donate overlap to the point that they can't constitute at least 30% of votes when combined.

Hope that helps! I just did the problem today and wanted to explain it for myself also!

[sumukh09]

I think E is saying the opposite of what you're saying. It's suggesting that eligible voters who donate (16%) might NOT join (26%).

Here's a possible scenario if that's the case:

1. 10% of eligible voters donate but DO NOT join the party.
2. 20% of eligible voters join the party but DO NOT donate.

In other words, at least some of these voters who donate or join don't do the other. (Also, note how these do not contradict the premises that 16% would be prepared to donate and 26% would like to join)

Combining these 2 facts indeed shows that there can be at least 30% of eligible voters who either joins or donates to the party, which weakens the conclusion. Ultimately, this points out a flaw of the stimulus, which is the assumption that the ppl who join and ppl who donate overlap to the point that they can't constitute at least 30% of votes when combined.

Hope that helps! I just did the problem today and wanted to explain it for myself also!

WOW just had one those "OHHH" moments thanks to your explanation. Okay, so if I understand it correctly now, the argument is assuming that there are people that do both ie) join the party AND donate within the two percentages. So assume there's a 100 people and 26 of them join and 16 donate, what the argument is doing is saying that they won't reach 30 percent because all 16 that donate could also join the party - which would mean 10 people (26 - 16) ONLY joined and so they would fall short 4 percent of the 30 percent mark. And the flaw is that some (maybe all) might do one or the other but not both and 30 percent could easily be achieved. Is that right? And thanks again.

[yhyuna]

Sweet I think you gave another possible scenario

The silly thing for me is that I prephrased this question correctly, but then didn't connect it to (e) b/c of the way it was phrased. I'm determined not to get tricked again by annoying LSAT wording!

[ptewarie]

I think E is saying the opposite of what you're saying. It's suggesting that eligible voters who donate (16%) might NOT join (26%).

Here's a possible scenario if that's the case:

1. 10% of eligible voters donate but DO NOT join the party.
2. 20% of eligible voters join the party but DO NOT donate.

In other words, at least some of these voters who donate or join don't do the other. (Also, note how these do not contradict the premises that 16% would be prepared to donate and 26% would like to join)

Combining these 2 facts indeed shows that there can be at least 30% of eligible voters who either joins or donates to the party, which weakens the conclusion. Ultimately, this points out a flaw of the stimulus, which is the assumption that the ppl who join and ppl who donate overlap to the point that they can't constitute at least 30% of votes when combined.

Hope that helps! I just did the problem today and wanted to explain it for myself also!

WOW just had one those "OHHH" moments thanks to your explanation. Okay, so if I understand it correctly now, the argument is assuming that there are people that do both ie) join the party AND donate within the two percentages. So assume there's a 100 people and 26 of them join and 16 donate, what the argument is doing is saying that they won't reach 30 percent because all 16 that donate could also join the party - which would mean 10 people (26 - 16) ONLY joined and so they would fall short 4 percent of the 30 percent mark. And the flaw is that some (maybe all) might do one or the other but not both and 30 percent could easily be achieved. Is that right? And thanks again.

I think you got it. To reiterate in more simple terms.

Author says(abstracted):

In order to be approved, 30% of people need to support A by either doing X or Y
BUT
16% Support X and 26% do Y
SO
we can't approve it.

Reading this you should be like umm, what?

If 16% support X and 26% support Y that's a total of 42% which is way over 30%!!!
However, the author assumes that the 16% of people who support X are the EXACT same people who make up the 26% of Y, so in total we only have 26% support which is below 30%!

Sure, this is possible, but an unwarranted assumption.

E is correct because it states that the argument overlooks that people who support X are not the same people who support Y and vice versa. If this is the case, then we have a total of 42% support.


Nice, short and simple.


In case you need more clarification, use this example:( I am using numbers instead of percentages to clear it up even more)

In order for Team X to win, they need a total of 100 points from game 1 and 2.

However, Team X only scored 70 points on game 1 and 30 points on game 2, so they did not win.

[Carlystern]

I still don't understand the correct answer (E). It's because of the wording. Do you think you can explain it in preschool terms for me?

When I saw the 26% and 16%, I automatically thought, "That's more than enough to be viable under the requirements of the 30% viability rule."

So I looked for an answer that would address that, but "some of the eligible voters who would donate money to an education party might not be prepared to join such a party" makes me think "ummmmm yeah, duh, what's the relevance, here?"

I just don't understand, I guess.

Carly

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for your question, Carlystern!

I think what may be tripping you up here is that you are making essentially the opposite assumption about the numbers from the author!

Let's review the simplified core:

PREMISES
26% would join party
16% would donate to party
Party needs at least 30% to work
CONCLUSION
Party unlikely to work.

Now, those 16% and 26% groups - do they overlap at all? Nothing in the premises tells us one way or another. It sounds like you are assuming they don't overlap. And for the author to get to his conclusion, he must be assuming they do.

If you assume that the two groups do not overlap, then the author's conclusion just makes no sense at all. Perhaps the flaw in that case would be that the author "fails to realize that 16 plus 26 is more than 30"! If you were looking at the argument this way, the conclusion would seem utterly nonsensical, and that would make identifying the assumption impossible.

That would also explain why (E) felt like it was stating the obvious to you. It was pointing out a possibility (that undermines the author's conclusion) that you had already assuming to be true.

However, if we accept that we don't know whether the groups overlap, and realize that the author is assuming they are overlapped, then we can recognize (E) as undermining that by pointing out the alternative possibility.

Does that help clear it up a bit?




It's also easy to get turned around on this question because for the education party to work, it actually needs some of the money donors NOT to want to join and a lot of the joiners NOT to want to donate money. That seems counter-intuitive to us, but the goal is getting 30% of people supporting somehow, and we maximize the total supporters that way.

[deedubbew]

There seemed to be a scope shift from "would like to join" to "prepared to join." How can I avoid getting misdirected in this way?

[magic.imango]

This question, somehow, is 100x more confusing than Interstellar.

According to the journalist the party needs at least 30% of support via joining or donations to be viable. 26% are willing to join; 16% are willing to donate. Therefore, the party is not viable.

Here is my confusion (and this runs counter to what I've read on this thread): It seems to me like the author is assuming that there is not an overlap. Because there isn't an overlap between the 26% and 16% group, there is no minimum of 30% that is needed for long-term viability. Hence the conclusion that the party is unlikely to be viable.

Consequently, I was looking for the negated version of (E); that the author fails to consider that some of the people who would donate would be prepared to join (and thus bring about the minimum of 30% support).

Can someone please clarify this? This question seriously sucks.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, magic.imango!

I think that you are expressing the same confusion that a few other posters had above, actually!

Here is my confusion (and this runs counter to what I've read on this thread): It seems to me like the author is assuming that there is not an overlap. Because there isn't an overlap between the 26% and 16% group, there is no minimum of 30% that is needed for long-term viability. Hence the conclusion that the party is unlikely to be viable.

Consequently, I was looking for the negated version of (E); that the author fails to consider that some of the people who would donate would be prepared to join (and thus bring about the minimum of 30% support).

Let's explore this a little. If there was NOT an overlap between the 16% donators, and the 26% joiners, what would that mean? These groups would be completely separate. We'd have 26% of one kind of support, and 16% of a different type of support. Remember that we didn't need 30% of ONE group of support, we just needed 30% of people do support in some way! If we had two separate groups, one of 26% and the other of 16%, with NO overlap, that would mean we'd have a TOTAL of 42% of people supporting in some way! The author cannot possibly be assuming this, since this would destroy his conclusion completely!

But what if there were a complete overlap? What if those 16% donators are all already in the 26% joiners group? Then we'd only have 26% of people supporting - some of those people would support in multiple ways, but there would still only be 26% total support. Check out the diagrams below.



I think, magic.imango, that you're trying to use the idea of overlap to change the numbers of the groups - in other words, you're thinking that if they do overlap, that you can say that the 16% donators NOW ADD to the joiners group, making the joiners group bigger than 26%. You can't do that! The joiners group can never be bigger than 26%, ever, no matter what, whether it includes donators or not! And the donator group can never be more than 16%, ever, whether it includes the joiners or not!

The second mistake that you're making is thinking that ONE of the groups needs to be over 30% to hit 'viable in the long run' status - that's not true. We need TOTAL support to be above 30%, but it doesn't all have to come from a single group (nor could it, since the 16% and 26% cannot change).

Does that help clear things up a bit?

As for your question, deedubbew - this is a great example of hairsplitting, when we get caught up in a superficial difference in wording that has no real, functional meaning difference. When the LSAT shifts scope, it does so with things that are easy to miss, but are undeniably different in meaning when we investigate. You might argue that "prepared to join" shows a teensy bit more immediate-readiness than does "would like to join", but this difference is so small and so debatable, that I wouldn't want to rest my life on it.

You should also ask yourself "is it reasonable that the LSAT might have meant these two phrases to mean the same thing?" In this case, we have a very strong signal that the LSAT does intend them to mean the same thing - each phrase appears in the descriptions of the groups: 26% "would like to" join, while 16% "would be prepared to" donate money.

Remember, the LSAT is allowed to use slightly different wording to refer to the same essential concepts without being guilty of "shifting scope"! True scope shifts are where the concept in play changes, not just the phrasing.

What do you think?

[roflcoptersoisoi]

This is for sure a curve breaker


P: To be viable in long run a party must 30 percent support but joining or donating money to it.
26 of voters who support the education party are prepared to join it, and 16 percent are prepared to donate money to it.
C: Therefore the party is not likely the party will be eligible in the long run.

Gap: The 16 percent of people that are willing to donate money to the party is a subset of 26 percent of those that are prepared to join it.

(A) Descriptively accurate but not the flaw. Even if this were taken into consideration the conclusion could still stand.
(B) Tempting , the argument does overlook look this, so the answer choice is descriptively accurate but it does not constitute a defect in the argument's logic. Further this answer talks about viability in a general sense, the argument only talks about long term viability so even if this would true, the conclusion could still stand.
(C) Descriptively accurate but not the flaw. In order for this to be contender we would have to assume that there is some causal relationship between amount of money donated and long term viability.
(D) The author does take this into account, this is just repeating the premises.
(E) Bingo. If this is true, then the party could have the support t least 30 percent of eligible voters, thus destroying the conclusion.

[Misti Duvall]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Historical evidence shows that a party needs 30% support (join or donate) to be viable long term. Though over half of voters support the idea of an education party, only 26% would join and 16% donate money. So an education party is unlikely viable long term.

Answer Anticipation:
For Flaw questions, ask yourself: What is wrong with this argument? Don't worry if you see more than one thing wrong, just take a second to note what you think. Here I don't like the reliance on historical evidence for a conclusion based on future projections, and I think the author must be assuming that at least some of the 26% who would join and 16% who would donate overlap (since 26 + 16 is clearly more than 30).

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Since the question stem asks what the argument fails to consider, we need to analyze all the answers based upon relevance. Fails to consider just means it's pointing out an outside objection to the argument. Ask: If the argument did consider this, does it hurt the argument? If not, eliminate. If so, that's your answer. For (A), this seems like it would be more likely to help the argument than hurt it, because if those who said they would donate don't actually, that's even less support.

(B) I liked this on first pass, since it seems to deal with the historical evidence. But the argument only concludes that an education party is unlikely to be viable long term. If it could be possibly be viable, that's still within the realm of unlikely.

(C) The premises don't say anything about how much money per person, just the percentage of support needed. So we have no way of knowing if this would hurt the argument, meaning it's irrelevant.

(D) Close, but not close enough. We only know that more than half support the IDEA of an education party, and the premise says we need at least 30% to support by joining or donating.

(E) This is it, though it's not what I was expecting. Or at least not how I expected it to be worded. But we noted above that the author seemed to be assuming that the 26% who would join and the 16% who would donate overlap, otherwise there's clearly more than 30% support. This answer calls into question that overlap, by noting that there might be some who would donate but not join. Meaning we might already be over the 30% threshold. (If, for example, 26% would join and/or donate, but an additional 10% would only donate.)

Takeaway/Pattern:
Take a second to think about what's wrong with the argument, but be flexible re what you anticipate. Sometimes you see a great flaw that's not in the answers. And sometimes a flaw you saw upfront isn't worded the way you thought it would be.

#officialexplanation