Q3 - Some members have criticized

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption (relies on assumptino)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Current President acted appropriately in inviting Dr. H.
Evidence: The current Pres didn't consult other club members first, but the same thing happened years ago when the previous Pres hired a tax acct without prior consultation.

Answer Anticipation:
You can almost hear your parent saying, "Well, if the old President jumped off a bridge, would you jump off one too?" Is the fact that someone else did something similar justification for the "appropriateness" of your behavior? Of course not. We could object to this author by saying "it was wrong for the previous Pres to do it, and it's wrong for the current Pres to do it". We could also object by saying that "hiring a tax acct" is different from "selecting a speaker for the banquet" in terms of whether they each equally merit consulting other club members beforehand.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This still doesn't get to the crucial matter of whether it was RIGHT to do so. If we negated this answer, it would have no weakening effect on the argument.

(B) Out of scope: whether members "expected" to be consulted is a different issue from whether it would have been "appropriate" to consult them.

(C) Out of scope: we don't care whether the invite was accepted or not. We're only trying to judge the appropriateness of the invitation itself.

(D) Weakens: this makes it seem like "hiring an acct" and "selecting a banquet speaker" are NOT fair to compare.

(E) Yes! This establishes the author's thinking: "If it was okay for the last pres to it, it's okay for this pres to do it". If we negated this, it would blow up the argument. If it was INAPPROPRIATE for the previous Pres to hire a tax acct without asking, then the author has NO defense for the Dr. Hines invite.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is similar to a template they use a lot that I call "complete the analogy".

Is it wrong to lie to your mom? That's like saying it's wrong to hug a baby.
(assumes: it is NOT wrong to hug a baby)

Is it wrong for the current Pres to have invited without asking? That's like saying it was wrong for the old Pres to hired a tax acct without asking.
(assumes: it was NOT wrong for the old Pres to hire the tax acct without asking)

#officialexplanation

[ttunden]

can anyone explain this Q please? i thought it was A because the way the last president was mentioned was as if the current one can not be as bad as the last president, therefore i chose A to show that no matter what the current president just did, its a lot better than the what the last president did ( hiring the tax accountant without asking or informing anyone ).

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you read a little too much into whatever attitude or tone this author had.

I didn't get that the author was saying the current president was better than the previous one (i.e. that the previous president was worse than the current one).

I thought the author was saying that both presidents were fine.

Our author is reacting to criticism about the current president, saying "Hey, there's nothing to freak out about. Check it out, the previous president did something similar."

Since the conclusion is labeling the current president "appropriate", we know that our author is condoning the president's behavior (both present and past).

It would be too much of a reach beyond the text to think that our author is saying the current president acted appropriately because the previous president did something much worse.

So, for this kind of argument:
Ppl think that Johnny did something wrong.
But Johnny just did what Mary did.
So Johnny's action was fine.

What is the assumption?

That Mary did nothing wrong. Since we're equating Johnny's behavior with Mary's behavior and thus trying to conclude that Johnny didn't do anything wrong, then we must believe that Mary also did nothing wrong.

(E) is doing just that. Since the author is equating the current president's behavior with the previous president's in order to conclude that the current president has acted appropriately, the author must assume/believe that the previous president acted appropriately.

If we negated this answer, it would say "the previous pres. did NOT act appropriately in hiring the acct. w/o consulting club members".

That would kill our author's argument.

Meanwhile, if we negated (A), it would say "the previous pres did NOT also invite speakers w/o consulting club members."

Would that kill our author's argument? No, our author would just say, "I know the previous pres didn't invite speakers w/o consultation but he DID hire an accountant w/o consultation."

Let me know if this doesn't clarify things. Good luck.

[jm.kahn]

In this argument we are assuming the previous president's acted appropriately.

Then why is 33.LR1.10 doesn't assume similarly that Stravinsky and Manet received public funding for their art?

Can any expert comment if they find the 33.LR1.10 question (https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t4825.html) to be a little loose with language and logic?

[maryadkins]

In that question on PT33, S and M are being used to demonstrate that art is shocking, not that they received public funding. ("Since it is clear that art is often shocking...") That's why we don't assume they received public funding. They are brought up to prove a different point (shock).

But you are right that this question is similar!

In this question, the previous president is being used as an example of someone who (presumably, hence the assumption (E)) acted appropriately.

[ying_yingjj]

I have to say this is a poor question.

Assuming the previous president's behavior as appropriate is not necessary.

The argument is like this:
The previous president did A without consulting members;
the current president did B without consulting members;
Conclusion:What the current president did is appropriate.

The assumption is, if the previous person did something, then the current president should be allowed to do it as well.

The author is not assuming what the previous president did was appropriate.

Another example:
A mentally healthy person can purchase a gun without being accused,
Lisa (another mentally healthy person) can purchase a gun without being accused.

No one needs to assume whether possessing a guy is appropriate or not. The author is just assuming, if the previous person did A, then the next person (under similar status) can do it as well.

This questions is poorly written.

[tommywallach]

A question is only poorly written if there's another answer choice that is better; there isn't here, so the question is still fair.

-t

[halflate37s]

With Assumption question are we looking for a missing premise that would make the argument sound or just one that is necessary for the argument to "proceed" ? If it were the only missing premise for a sound argument, would that make it a Justify the Conclusion question?

I think the issue in this question is that there is another missing premise aside from E to make the argument sound, but E is still necessary.

Some have criticized A for doing X.
But a few years ago B did X.
So A acted appropriately.

Missing premises:
1. B acted appropriately
2. A's circumstances (w/ regard to act appropriateness) are practically identical to B's


I think the absence of 2. is throwing us off.

Missing that second premise, I reached for answer B, falling into a trap of making unsupported inferences toward a contrast of appropriateness in order to cover that unknown.
Even if answer B successfully showed president B to be inappropriate:
IF the circumstances are the same, THEN A acted inappropriately as well (NOT what we want to show).
IF the circumstances are different, THEN we still don't know about A.

If its assumed that president B acted appropriately (Answer E):
IF the circumstances are the same, THEN A acted appropriately as well (what we want to show)
IF the circumstances are different, THEN we still don't know about A.


I assume answers A,C, and D are more easily identified as wrong.