Q12 - A theoretical framework facilitates

[morgansea]

can someone explain why the answer is C, not B or A? I can see why A and B may be incorrect as they two deal with the benefits and usefulness of the framework, which are irrelevant/besides the point? But, not quite sure why C is right. Its wording seems a bit odd to me at first as well. Also, any general strategy for a "complete the argument" type of questions?

Thanks!

[peg_city]

X2

[bdk980]

I could be wrong... but

a)talks about no benefit (what-so)ever... This is pretty extreme language that does not seem to be implied in the stimulus. "...the past is too complex for all of of its main trends to be captured..." This would seem to leave the door open that some benefit could be accrued from this methodology.

b) No where in the stimulus were "other disciplines" discussed.

c) This answer seems to encapsulate perfectly what answer choice A did not, that not all historical trends can be captured within the theoretical framework ideology.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

a)talks about no benefit (what-so)ever... This is pretty extreme language that does not seem to be implied in the stimulus.

Nice, exactly right.

b) No where in the stimulus were "other disciplines" discussed.

Yup!


There's no general strategy that applies to all complete the argument questions, but you have to consider the words at the beginning of the sentence. Sometimes it's "because" so you would know you were looking for an answer choice that represents evidence. In this case, we know we're looking for something that would best represent a conclusion the argument is designed to establish.

On Identify the Conclusion questions, the turning point is often the author's conclusion. It is here too. And essentially, answer choice (C) restates the claim that a theoretical framework is unable to capture main trends.

(A) goes way too far. This answer choice suffers from an issue of degree.
(B) is unsupported since other disciplines simply aren't discussed.
(D) fails to include the author's criticism.
(E) also suffers from an issue of degree. it takes the historians' position and asserts that an extreme opposite is true.

Does that answer your question?

[zainrizvi]

The conclusion must be relevant to the evidence given, hence in order for that premise to make sense, it must be somehow related to the conclusion. (C) does that nicely.

That being said, is the reason the first sentence not relevant (directly) to the conclusion because it is background information and not a premise?

I was unsure about this question because I felt like the conclusion didn't address the first part at all, but now I think it didn't need to.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That being said, is the reason the first sentence not relevant (directly) to the conclusion because it is background information and not a premise?

Very rarely do claims actually serve as background - sometimes yes, but usually there's a more specific role for the claim to play. In this case, the first sentence is the support for the opposing point. The historians in the second sentence use the first sentence as the basis for their argument.

Does that answer your question?

[zagreus77]

I was just looking at this question, and I found it tough. I got the right answer but it really forced me to think far more than most fill in questions do.

Basically, it didn't seem to have an obvious completion I could prephrase, or rather, it didn't present anything that similar to what I had in mind. But the extremity of a and b came to the rescue.

[Joetrot88]

The first sentence in the stim is just a definition of theoretical framework.

The juicy stuff (aka the stuff we need is in the next 2 sentences)


Basically the passage is stating: history research is done best in theoretical frame work bullshit, but the past is too complicated for this theoretical framework bullshit to be captured.

Why is C correct?

Well, C just states what we said.
Even if the best history research is done within theoretical frame work bullshit, this bull shit wont be captured.

To further explain why this is true, the stim basically tells us about this theoretical framework bullshit then goes and tells us that it's complete shit and it can't even capture the main trends of the past.

So it makes sense that the answer choice has extreme language because it states even the BEST research available won't fit in with this framework bullshit.


Its like saying " A midget wants to play football in the wide receiver position, but his height wont allow him to be good."

C would state... Even in the midget's best game he will not be good.

[Yit HanS103]

Would B have been the correct answer, if the first sentence of the stimulus would have said " A theoretical framework facilitates conceptual organization of material and fruitful expansions of research IN MANY DISCIPLINES" ?

I chose C, but when I was reviewing this question I thought B was a better answer. This is a MSS question, and C I feel like it is a little extreme by saying it would "fail"
to me the last sentence in the stimulus is an assumption the author has, that because history is too complex TF wouldn't work. But she/he doesn't say it will certainly fail.

Help please!

[JohnZ880]

These questions are sometimes tricky in my opinion because I'm not entirely sure what the writers of the LSAT are looking for. I put B, which is obviously out of scope, but I chose B because I didn't really like any other answers. Certainly (C) is true, but I see no reason why it "logically completes" the argument. Here's my faulty reasoning below:

Many historians: Historical analysis is BEST done within a theoretical framework

Premise of the Counterargument: Theoretical frameworks can't account for all of the complexity of the past

I'm not sure why I did this, but I thought to myself, "hmm, if I'm one of the many historians, how would I respond?" And I came up with something like this:
"You're right. While theoretical frameworks can't account for all of the complexity of the past and are certainly not perfect, they are still better than non-framework alternatives."

So I thought of a conclusion that would use the premise to come up with an appropriate critique of the argument advanced by the many historians and would also seek to slightly address the gap above, which was something like this:
"While theoretical frameworks are advantageous in general, they are less useful tool when conducting historical analysis." I thought (B) best matched my paraphrase.

So to me, while C could conclude the argument, it's not very logical because it's sort of irrelevant to the claim made by the historians. It's a bad counterargument and not very logical. B, of course, is also not a very strong counterargument to the claim made by the many historians.

Should I just treat these questions as must be true questions and forget about the validity of the argument?