Q18 - Contrary to Malthus's arguments, human

[JamesM914]

Can someone explain why 'Malthus's position' in C necessarily refers to his argument (ie premise + conclusion), and not just the conclusion that insufficient food will doom humanity to war, pestilence, and famine?

In most use cases I thought a person's 'positions' would refer only to their final judgement on a particular matter, so for example a politician's position on abortion is either in support or against it, and nothing else (not how they came about their views).

Maybe the dictionary correct definition of 'position' refers to both the premise->conclusion, but then that seems like a poorly designed question since it depends crucially on knowing a somewhat arbitrary/obscure language feature (judging by the other people who got tripped up).

Great question. I'm not sure I have an equally great answer!

From the first sentence--"Contrary to Mathus's arguments..."--we learn that the statement in question is contrary to what Malthus is arguing. So, the easiest way to characterize the statement in question is that it's contrary to M's arguments. We definitely could (and should) refine that a bit: it's contrary to the argument but does lead to the same final prediction. With that in mind, it's hard to simply say that the observation support's M's position. In short, the role of the statement is either more simple--contrary to--or more complex--supports part of what M says in a convoluted way. (C) doesn't hit either option.

The other answer to your question is that we see a reference to M's arguments (first sentence), so there's no inherent reason to use a narrow interpretation of "position" when the stimulus introduces the entirety of M's argument as the general topic.

I wish I could be more definitive here, but I think this particular issue with this question is not something we need to worry about showing up on the next LSAT. It's pretty specific.

I disagree Noah. Obscure language happens way more than you think. This is the single most frustrating part of the LSAT.

[ChaimL393]

I, like many, it seems, wrongly chose (C). In my review, what helped me eliminate (C) was the ambiguity of the word "position" in relation to Malthus. After all, the argument mentions not one, but TWO distinct predictions made by Malthus. Thus, the statement whose role we are asked to determine actually plays two roles in the argument. It is used to undermine the first of Malthus's predictions AND to vindicate the second (1st and 2nd in terms of their appearance in the stimulus). The term "position" can reasonably refer to one or the other, but not both, of the Malthus's predictions. If it was in reference to the first, then (C) would be transparently wrong. However, if it was in reference to the second prediction, then (C) would be a great answer choice. But we are not told explicitly which prediction the term "position" is referring to. We would need to add our assumption, without basis, in order to make (C) work. By contrast, no such assumption needs to be made in relation to (D). Thus, this question is not hard, as some have suggested, because the LSAT writers are being sloppy and not defining their terms. Perhaps the test-writers are purposefully introducing ambiguity into the answer choices, and it is the test-takers job to make as few substantive assumptions as possible.

[VendelaG465]

I had picked A originally I'm a bit lost as to how D is the correct answer? I didn't see that attitude/tone in the text in regards to the "will eventually change" statement. & it also seemed more of a hypothesis than general fact..?

[NicholasL644]

The stimulus is in past tense... it has "increased."
The argument does not offer any reason to believe the fact that "food capacity has increased more rapidly than human population (at some point in the past)" will eventually change. It's history after all.

?????