Other Areas

[hovaLSAT]

Hi,

I have noticed a pattern and was wondering if and how it is valid.

Say for example an argument states: "Company X is trying out a new training pattern in order to improve productivity. This program works by XYZ reason (premise supporting this)."

Many times if there is a strengthen question or all of these help the argument except, there will be a choice along the lines of:

"Company Y tried a similar type of program and saw improvement in their employees' productivity."

Now, the reason people say this strengthens the argument is that it shows that a similar type of method is working somewhere else. However, couldn't there be fundamental differences in between the two companies? Couldn't Y have 10 employees and X have 100,000 therefore making what works for Y not necessarily work for X?

How can we be comfortable accepting this as a strengthener when it doesn't necessarily need to be true? Does this come down to the difference between a strengthen (can have a little more latitude) and a necessary assumption type question?

Thanks for the feedback!

[tommywallach]

Hey Hova,

Great spot here! However, you've misinterpreted how it's used on the test. Indeed, this is a famous trap answer! Traditionally, you can't strengthen the argument that X --> Y in context Z by saying that X --> Y in context Q. Usually, this will be a wrong answer.

HOWEVER, I have indeed seen it be correct here and there on the LSAT. That is because it does strengthen a little. Think of it this way, if I want to know if a taxi can take me 100 miles, it does help to know that a taxi can take me 10 miles.

More often than not, this is a trap, for the exact reason you stated. But if there's nothing better to go on, it can also be correct.

There's the LSAT for ya! : )

-t