Q10 - Letter to the editor: Sites

[dina]

I had trouble with this question because the correct choice, D, seems so... undemocratic. Also the word "testimony" in the answer choice confused me, as the people petitioned rather than provided testimony, which doesn't generally require expertise.
I picked choice B because that seems like a flaw in the argument. How would you rule that one out definitively?

[bbirdwell]

Focus on the conclusion itself. The conclusion is that a certain approach would damage fishing (i.e. is bad). (B) cannot be the answer because, in order to conclude that approach X is bad, I don't have to prove that approach Y is viable.

See what I mean?

Choice (D) basically says "What if the 20,000 people who are against approach X are 3 yr olds from land-locked town in rural Nebraska?"

The dictionary definitions of "testimony" vs "signed a petition" are immaterial here. It's reasonable to equate them.

I agree, this is not a knight-in-shining-armor answer, but it's the best of the bunch, and it does point to a legitimate concern in the argument's logic.

The reason this question is harder than we might expect for a #10 is that the more obvious logical flaw is not a choice: assuming that the sand-capped pits would not also damage the fishing operations. While this seems to be what (B) wants to say, it's not what (B) actually says. That's why a lot of people choose it.

[ashleydymond]

I understand why "D" is correct, but can you explain why "A" is wrong. Is it just too vague? I alternated between the two choices because I thought "A" was still a plausible choice, but it wasn't very specific.

Thanks,

Ashley

[LSAT-Chang]

I think the reason why (D) is not so attractive is because I was honestly looking for an answer choice that said something like "the argument overlooks the possibility that the sample is unrepresentative" but answer choice (D) is a 100% certain claim -- what I mean is, the question stem asks what the flaw is and ends there and doesn't go on and say "because it fails to consider" or "it overlooks the possibility" -- so (D) made it sound like it is a known fact that the argument's conclusion is based on the testimony of people who have not been shown to have appropriate expertise. But we don't know that from the statements. We have no information to conclude that these were people with no expertise. For all we know it could have been by people with expertise. So I was hesitant to choose it at first because if it had the words "Overlooks the possibility that the testimony came from people who have not been shown to have appropriate expertise" then I would have circled it without doubt. But I guess it's better the rest.

[timmydoeslsat]

Yeah, you are doing great my man. Do not be to scared of "strong" language. It is true that in this argument, it was not shown that these people had expertise. The conclusion is "the approach you propose would damage..."

Evidence of this is a petition of signatures from people with no distinction rendered to them.

[mxl392]

I really do not see how one can arbitrarily state that "petition" and "testimony" can be equated. That's why I didn't pick D...

[shirando21]

it is still early in the section, you don't have to match 100%.
I did this by eliminating wrong answers, I was able to eliminate A C E, btw B and D, I don't see this argument relevant to viability, so I picked D.

Basically, the author of the letter says, the approach you proposed is not good, because 20,000 people oppose to it and they are in favor of another proposal.

But does that mean what they are in favor of is right? Obviously no. if they don't have knowledge/expertise in this area, then you can not count on their proposed approach is a good one.

[samuelfbaron]

Actually, what you have to pay attention to here is the scope shift:

Conclusion: The approach you propose would damage fishing operations.

Why?

Premise: 20,000 people oppose this approach.

All I could think when reading this stimulus was 'so what'. That is a horrible argument! The relevance of the petition is not established and it's affect on the conclusion is not mentioned at all. (D) sums this up, although not in a perfect way. I think what (D) is really getting at is "the arguments conclusion is based on a premise that hasn't been established as relevant".

[tzyc]

Why is (A) wrong??
I thought...since it just shows how many people (20000) have signed petitions opposing the idea, and concludes the approach is wrong, (it does not attack the editor's argument but just show evidence) what (A) says is the flaw in the letter...

Thank you.

[pridefc]

Why is (A) wrong??
I thought...since it just shows how many people (20000) have signed petitions opposing the idea, and concludes the approach is wrong, (it does not attack the editor's argument but just show evidence) what (A) says is the flaw in the letter...

Thank you.

(A) The letter writer does not introduce the editor's view.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great discussion going on here all! Let's break this question down completely.

Always remember to start with getting down to brass tacks on the core itself. Don't just go with what you feel like the argument is saying - that's where the traps are!

Premise: 20,000 people oppose X approach and favor sand-capped pits.
Conclusion: X approach would damage commmercial fishing operations.

Whoa. There's so many holes in this it's difficult to know where to begin! Where did 'damage to commercial fishing operations' come from? How do we know these people are opposing X approach because of that? How do we know they are right?

This argument is almost as bad as the type often made by teenagers (you know you did it too): Everyone at school thinks jeggings are better than regular jeans, therefore regular jeans torture puppies. ... Wha?

(D) zeroes in on the idea of 'how do we know they are right?' very clearly. If these 20,000 don't have any appropriate expertise on the matter, then how would their opinion support any rationally made conclusion?

dina is absolutely correct that this is somewhat undemocratic - but that's okay. It's logical to use the opinion of your cardiologist to support a conclusion about your heart medication. It's not logical to use the opinion of your florist, or your tween daughter, or the guy you met on the subway this morning.

Also, as bbirdwell points out above, don't get caught up in hairsplitting the meaning of 'petitioning' versus 'testimony' - these are both evidence-ish words the LSAT uses relatively interchangeably to refer to claims people make.


Not the Problem
(A) The editor's view is presumably that the approach X above is a good one, but we don't know anything more. The author claims this is a bad approach, but he never distorts anything about what the editor has said - he just disagrees with it.

(B) "fails to establish" is code for "assumes". If this were a necessary assumption of the argument, negating it should destroy the conclusion. Let's try it:
Negation: Sand-capped pits are not a viable solution.
This would mean that 20,000 favor a non-viable solution over Approach X, but that doesn't affect the conclusion that Approach X is damaging.

Note that the conclusion is NOT 'sand-capped pits is a better solution'. That's what 20,000 people think, and that fact is used as support for the real conclusion: that approach X is damaging.

(C) There's no indication that the author's self-interest would favor any one approach over another.

(E) "takes for granted" is code for "assumes". If this is a necessary assumption, negating it should destroy the argument.
Negation: A third option is available that would make everyone happy.
This doesn't change the conclusion, which is that Approach X is dangerous!


Remember to always ferret out the core before moving into the answer choices! Being explicit about what the conclusion really is will help keep you on track.

I hope this helps!

[levyyun]

Answer choice (D), to me at least, sounds like a correct answer for a weaken question, not a flaw question. I still don't see how D is the right answer, but I guess it's better than the other options.

[contropositive]

At first I picked B because I did not catch the mismatch between "financial rewards" and "high salary" which is what you need in order to arrive at C, the correct answer.

During review, I realized B is wrong because it doesn't matter what "in many surveys" or many other surveys are saying or what results they have.

This is how I thought of it, I am not sure if I was correct or not.

For example, an argument could claim people who order sundae are more likely to get peanuts as toppings than those who order strawberry shortcake. Lets say we want to weaken this argument. Answer choice A would say "in many surveys those who order strawberry shortcake would prefer peanuts as toppings" this answer wouldn't weaken the argument because it doesn't matter that those who order strawberry shortcake would prefer peanuts as toppings...this does not impact the fact that when someone orders sundae their more likely to get peanut as topping.

[CraigO192]

I originally went with D on first attempt at this PT. I flagged it as I was taking the test, and still went with D on my Blind Review.

It's one of those the best answer isn't that good, just better than the rest, I think.

To review,

Author's conclusion: The editor's proposal to dump dredge spoils in some location (location X) would harm commercial fishing operations.

Author's premise: 20'000 people signed a petition to dump elsewhere. (location Y)

It's a super weak argument, but I can see why myself, and so many others found B so attractive.

B claims there is no proof that the location proposed by the 20'000 people is better than the Editors'.

D claims that author basis his/her conclusion on 20'000 people that have not been proven to show any expertise in the matter.

The author is trying to prove that dumping the dredge spoils in location X would harm commercial fishing operations because 20'000 people want to dump the spoils in location Y.

I still don't like D, but understand why it's stronger than B. The author is relying on the testimony of 20'000 people, and we don't even know who they are!

They could be a group of children, they could've been held at gunpoint to sign the petition, they could be 20'000 people in a city of 10,000,000 people where the other 9,980,000 approve of the editors' location, etc.

It's irrelevant as to whether dumping in location Y is better, we need to weaken the argument that dumping in location X is wrong. Although it's not a home-run answer, D is correct, in calling the usefulness of the representative sample into question, as it is the author's only proof.