Q2 - Albert: Swenson's popular book, which argues

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Disagreement

Stimulus Breakdown:
A: This book is bad, but it's valuable because it spurred research.

Y: It's not (virus analogy).

Answer Anticipation:
Both A and Y talk about value, so there's overlap there. A think S's book is valuable, and Y's response is that he must be kidding in saying that. The answer will almost certainly discuss whether the book is valuable.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. Y doesn't talk about this. I would also argue we can't commit A to this, as he states the book is an example of poor scholarship, which isn't the same as saying it's wrong (maybe it gets to the right conclusion through bad means).

(B) Half scope. A definitely agrees with this, but Y doesn't talk about the scholarship in the book.

(C) Bingo. A agrees; Y disagrees.

(D) Half scope/if anything, agree. A definitely agrees with this. Y doesn't explicitly mention it, but if she has any feelings, she'd agree with it. Otherwise, her analogy doesn't work.

(E) Out of scope. A doesn't talk about things that don't stimulate new research. Y also doesn't explicitly talk about this topic.

Takeaway/Pattern: If the second speaker interjects with a denunciation of the preceding argument, see how that argument ends - it's usually the point of disagreement.

#officialexplanation

[LukeM22]

So, I chose C, but have a lingering thought:

Yvonne (or, "Person B") didn't actually explicitly say that the book is or is not valuable; she only criticized/disagreed with the idea that stimulation of research--> value-- i.e. that specific relationship. It would require an additional assumption-- that Yvonne doesn't believe the research to be valuable for other reason-- for us to really infer Yvonne's ultimate opinion on the value of the book. I only bring this up because I have noticed in other questions, particularly flaw questions, that LSAT logic dictates that rejecting the premises/declaring the evidence/premises insufficient is NOT the same thing as wholesale rejection of a conclusion.

Would a "better" answer be that they disagree over "things are valuable by virtue of stimulating research".

Thank you,

[LukeM22]

Just following up on this: Question 12 of this section makes a clear delineation between rejecting the evidence/premise and rejecting the claim.

[ohthatpatrick]

You'll get in trouble, I fear, if you try to read ID the Disagreement that tightly. It's a "most supported" task, so our correct answer doesn't have to be bulletproof. A lot of these are gist-y, so you shouldn't demand perfect support.

When I do ID the Disagreement, I read both authors, then I revisit each claim the first author made and figure out which of those claims the 2nd author disagreed with.

Here, I'd be asking whether person 2 was arguing:
- S's book isn't popular
- S's book doesn't argue that sun exposure is harmless
- S's book represents at least adequate scholarship
- S's book is not valuable
- S's book has not stimulated new research on sun exposure

It's pretty easy for me to choose the bold one as the one that Yvonne's statements are most directed toward arguing.

You asked:
Would a "better" answer be that they disagree over "things are valuable by virtue of stimulating research".


With a couple tightening of the screws, you could make that answer work (in the form of "X is / isn't good evidence for Y")

But I wouldn't call it better, in the sense that Yvonne is definitely reacting to Albert's claim that the popular book is valuable. She's not yelping, "What inadequate logic!"

Inherent in saying "We might as well do X, if we're gonna do Y" is the idea that "We should not be doing Y".

"We might as well say viruses are valuable for stimulating research if we're gonna say poor scholarship is valuable for doing so!" Implication: we should not be saying poor scholarship is valuable for doing so.

Yes, it's possible that Yvonne is just reacting to Albert's stupid justification for calling the book valuable, and in REALITY Yvonne has her own secret reasons why she thinks the book should be considered valuable, but ..... it's a most supported task. Take the low hanging fruit on a Q2.