Hi. This section is about structure indicators Questions in 5LB Book.
Pg. 47 (Drill.5) Q.55, Shouldn't this be IC more than P ?
Pg.387. (Drill.69) Q.18 & Q.19., Should Q. 18 be premise and Q.19 be either IC or Intermediate conclusionish Premise ?
Pg.388-389. (Drill.69) Q.44. This should be P even though i understand there is some CE characteristics. Isn't it?
pg. 429 (Drill.78) Q. 42, even though i think this analysis overall is okay. I believe the phrase in the end "will seldom priortize their efforts properly" should be expressed using different words. they don't really get supported.
pg.884, (Drill 168) Q.8 & 9, Isn't Q. 8 and Q. 9, these information serve the role of Premises, but i also see the characteristics of CE. Especially by the word, Q.10's beginning phrase, "However", i see CE characteristic are there as well in Q.8 and Q.9.
pg.884 (Drill 168), Q. 20, Isn't this IC and CE at the same time ?
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- RogerD345
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 56
- Joined: July 08th, 2018
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Inquiring regards Drill 5, 52, 69, 78, 168-struct indicators
Pg. 47 (Drill.5) Q.55, Shouldn't this be IC more than P ?
I see what you're saying, but i'm okay with Premise. #55 isn't an opinion. It's a fact that a number of leading experts disagree with Isaac's assessment.
Were we to ask, "Why should I believe that they disagree with Isaacs?" You wouldn't answer that by pointing at #56. You'd say something like "well, they've written various articles that go against things Isaacs has said / they've added commentary onto Isaacs' Wikipedia page."
Were we to ask "Why do they disagree?", you would answer by pointing at #56. But that's THEIR conclusion, not the author's.
If #55 said something like, "However, Isaacs appears to be wrong." and then #56 said "according to many present day experts, the differences are incidental" then I would call #55 an IC.
Pg.387. (Drill.69) Q.18 & Q.19., Should Q. 18 be premise and Q.19 be either IC or Intermediate conclusionish Premise ?
I'm cool with calling 18 and 19 premises, which would then render #20 an IC, which was supported by 18 and 19.
I would not call 19 an IC, since it's a fact, not an opinion.
But I think that #20 is an opinion, supported by 18 and 19.
Pg.388-389. (Drill.69) Q.44. This should be P even though i understand there is some CE characteristics. Isn't it?
I would probably call it background, since it's pretty unclear whether it supports or opposes the conclusion.
Concluding that Andersen will "probably not qualify" ends up being equivalent to concluding that Andersen will "probably not perform brilliantly in at least three matches".
Why should we believe that "he probably not perform brilliantly in at least three matches"?
- there are four matches left.
(one could argue that strengthens, because if you only have four chances to be brilliant, then nailing 3 out of 4 is pretty low probability. but one could argue this weakens, because if you have four matches left, then you still DO have a chance to perform brilliantly in 3 matches.)
pg. 429 (Drill.78) Q. 42, even though i think this analysis overall is okay. I believe the phrase in the end "will seldom priortize their efforts properly" should be expressed using different words. they don't really get supported.
I think "seldom" is a callback to the frequency words used in the second of the two rules:
intermed goal is easy to achieve --> ALWAYS worthwhile to try to achieve it
intermed goal is not easy to achieve and not intrinsically valuable --> RARELY worth trying
seldom = rarely
pg.884, (Drill 168) Q.8 & 9, Isn't Q. 8 and Q. 9, these information serve the role of Premises, but i also see the characteristics of CE. Especially by the word, Q.10's beginning phrase, "However", i see CE characteristic are there as well in Q.8 and Q.9.
"However" doesn't have to mean counterpoint. It usually does, but sometimes it's still building the same point and just using a pivot word to redirect emphasis:
EXAMPLE:
People know that Lebron James is a great offensive player. However, he is also a great defensive player. Clearly, then, Lebron James is one of the NBA's best players.
Both of the first two claims are premises.
Similarly, in this one ... "we can conclude that kids' minds are more flexible than adults' minds"
why should we believe that?
- a bunch of experiments have shown that adults have belief perserverance, possibly because of mental "inertia"
meanwhile
- anyone familiar with kids see that they are more likely than adults to change their beliefs quickly
I'm a little dicey on calling #9 anything. It's kinda background. It's kind of an IC based on #8. It's just so speculative and not integral to arriving at the final conclusion that adult minds are less flexible than those of kids.
pg.884 (Drill 168), Q. 20, Isn't this IC and CE at the same time ?
I'm not sure how you think it's counterevidence.
conclusion: "it'll benefit me more to do picture books than novels"
(why?)
#20: "novels are less profitable than picture books"
That seems like it directly supports the conclusion in #18.
I see what you're saying, but i'm okay with Premise. #55 isn't an opinion. It's a fact that a number of leading experts disagree with Isaac's assessment.
Were we to ask, "Why should I believe that they disagree with Isaacs?" You wouldn't answer that by pointing at #56. You'd say something like "well, they've written various articles that go against things Isaacs has said / they've added commentary onto Isaacs' Wikipedia page."
Were we to ask "Why do they disagree?", you would answer by pointing at #56. But that's THEIR conclusion, not the author's.
If #55 said something like, "However, Isaacs appears to be wrong." and then #56 said "according to many present day experts, the differences are incidental" then I would call #55 an IC.
Pg.387. (Drill.69) Q.18 & Q.19., Should Q. 18 be premise and Q.19 be either IC or Intermediate conclusionish Premise ?
I'm cool with calling 18 and 19 premises, which would then render #20 an IC, which was supported by 18 and 19.
I would not call 19 an IC, since it's a fact, not an opinion.
But I think that #20 is an opinion, supported by 18 and 19.
Pg.388-389. (Drill.69) Q.44. This should be P even though i understand there is some CE characteristics. Isn't it?
I would probably call it background, since it's pretty unclear whether it supports or opposes the conclusion.
Concluding that Andersen will "probably not qualify" ends up being equivalent to concluding that Andersen will "probably not perform brilliantly in at least three matches".
Why should we believe that "he probably not perform brilliantly in at least three matches"?
- there are four matches left.
(one could argue that strengthens, because if you only have four chances to be brilliant, then nailing 3 out of 4 is pretty low probability. but one could argue this weakens, because if you have four matches left, then you still DO have a chance to perform brilliantly in 3 matches.)
pg. 429 (Drill.78) Q. 42, even though i think this analysis overall is okay. I believe the phrase in the end "will seldom priortize their efforts properly" should be expressed using different words. they don't really get supported.
I think "seldom" is a callback to the frequency words used in the second of the two rules:
intermed goal is easy to achieve --> ALWAYS worthwhile to try to achieve it
intermed goal is not easy to achieve and not intrinsically valuable --> RARELY worth trying
seldom = rarely
pg.884, (Drill 168) Q.8 & 9, Isn't Q. 8 and Q. 9, these information serve the role of Premises, but i also see the characteristics of CE. Especially by the word, Q.10's beginning phrase, "However", i see CE characteristic are there as well in Q.8 and Q.9.
"However" doesn't have to mean counterpoint. It usually does, but sometimes it's still building the same point and just using a pivot word to redirect emphasis:
EXAMPLE:
People know that Lebron James is a great offensive player. However, he is also a great defensive player. Clearly, then, Lebron James is one of the NBA's best players.
Both of the first two claims are premises.
Similarly, in this one ... "we can conclude that kids' minds are more flexible than adults' minds"
why should we believe that?
- a bunch of experiments have shown that adults have belief perserverance, possibly because of mental "inertia"
meanwhile
- anyone familiar with kids see that they are more likely than adults to change their beliefs quickly
I'm a little dicey on calling #9 anything. It's kinda background. It's kind of an IC based on #8. It's just so speculative and not integral to arriving at the final conclusion that adult minds are less flexible than those of kids.
pg.884 (Drill 168), Q. 20, Isn't this IC and CE at the same time ?
I'm not sure how you think it's counterevidence.
conclusion: "it'll benefit me more to do picture books than novels"
(why?)
#20: "novels are less profitable than picture books"
That seems like it directly supports the conclusion in #18.
2 posts Page 1 of 1