LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- courtney_chrusch
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 7
- Joined: March 03rd, 2016
Q12 - Q responds to P's response by...
Can someone please help me with why this is A? This question has not been posted yet. Thank you!
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q12 - Q responds to P's response by...
Of course! Sorry for the slow reply.
TYPE: Analyze Argument Structure (Describe Response)
BREAKDOWN:
P's argument:
CONC: It's useless to comply with the new safety regulations
why?
EVID: They would not have prevented last year's fire, since they don't address its underlying causes.
Q's response:
CONC: Complying with the new safety regulations would be useFUL
why?
EVID: They might prevent other types of accidents (that aren't like last year's fire), and saving that money is useful.
PRE-PHRASE
Q's response is the classic Weaken structure on LSAT. "I can accept your Premise but still argue for the opposite of your Conclusion."
Q is trying to argue against P's conclusion and say that complying with the new regulations would NOT be useless (would be useful).
Q doesn't deny P's remark that the new stuff wouldn't have thwarted last year's fire. Q just says, "There's other stuff to consider. Even though the new stuff would have been useless in that situation, we can't say it's USELESS, since it would potentially benefit us in other ways."
ANSWER CHOICES
(A) Q is definitely assessing utility. The whole Conc vs. Anti-Conc debate is whether "compliance is useless vs. useful". Does Q "extend the basis for assessment"? Sure, that's just a fancy way of saying "brought up other stuff". Q is saying, "don't just assess the usefulness of compliance by looking at whether it would have thwarted last year's fire. We should also look the type of accidents it WILL thwart."
(B) No, Q doesn't address P's premise at all. Q implicitly accepts P's premise but just brings up other considerations that bear on the truth value of the "useful vs. useless" conclusion. Q is saying "P, even if you're right about your assessment, there are still OTHER cases where the new regulations WOULD be useful."
(C) What? "The usefulness of ALL cannot be validly inferred from SOME ..."? No one is having this "part vs. whole" conversation. Q and P are specifically talking about the new regulations, and they're only bringing up whether or not it would prevent certain accidents and whether or not it's therefore useful.
(D) Q didn't say anything about what P was assuming. This answer is just playing with a fake logical reversal of P's argument.
P's argument was "if it wouldn't have thwarted last year's fire, then it's useless."
This answer accuses P of assuming
"if it would have thwarted last year's fire, then it's useful."
(E) There's no potential vs. actual point being made. The crucial distinction is between whether the new regulations would prevent LAST YEAR's accident and whether the new regulations would prevent ANY OTHER accidents.
Hope this helps.
TYPE: Analyze Argument Structure (Describe Response)
BREAKDOWN:
P's argument:
CONC: It's useless to comply with the new safety regulations
why?
EVID: They would not have prevented last year's fire, since they don't address its underlying causes.
Q's response:
CONC: Complying with the new safety regulations would be useFUL
why?
EVID: They might prevent other types of accidents (that aren't like last year's fire), and saving that money is useful.
PRE-PHRASE
Q's response is the classic Weaken structure on LSAT. "I can accept your Premise but still argue for the opposite of your Conclusion."
Q is trying to argue against P's conclusion and say that complying with the new regulations would NOT be useless (would be useful).
Q doesn't deny P's remark that the new stuff wouldn't have thwarted last year's fire. Q just says, "There's other stuff to consider. Even though the new stuff would have been useless in that situation, we can't say it's USELESS, since it would potentially benefit us in other ways."
ANSWER CHOICES
(A) Q is definitely assessing utility. The whole Conc vs. Anti-Conc debate is whether "compliance is useless vs. useful". Does Q "extend the basis for assessment"? Sure, that's just a fancy way of saying "brought up other stuff". Q is saying, "don't just assess the usefulness of compliance by looking at whether it would have thwarted last year's fire. We should also look the type of accidents it WILL thwart."
(B) No, Q doesn't address P's premise at all. Q implicitly accepts P's premise but just brings up other considerations that bear on the truth value of the "useful vs. useless" conclusion. Q is saying "P, even if you're right about your assessment, there are still OTHER cases where the new regulations WOULD be useful."
(C) What? "The usefulness of ALL cannot be validly inferred from SOME ..."? No one is having this "part vs. whole" conversation. Q and P are specifically talking about the new regulations, and they're only bringing up whether or not it would prevent certain accidents and whether or not it's therefore useful.
(D) Q didn't say anything about what P was assuming. This answer is just playing with a fake logical reversal of P's argument.
P's argument was "if it wouldn't have thwarted last year's fire, then it's useless."
This answer accuses P of assuming
"if it would have thwarted last year's fire, then it's useful."
(E) There's no potential vs. actual point being made. The crucial distinction is between whether the new regulations would prevent LAST YEAR's accident and whether the new regulations would prevent ANY OTHER accidents.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1