Q12 - Yang: Yeast has long been

[jasonxu89]

Could anybody help me with this one. I had a hard time understanding B because I was not able to identify the presumption underlying in Yang's argument...

Thanks!

[ccalice21]

I think the presumption is that the leaven in use 1200 B.C. was yeast.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think the presumption is that the leaven in use 1200 B.C. was yeast.

Let me know if this is what you meant...

Evidence - there is biblical evidence that leavens were in use as far back as 1200 BC.

Conclusion - yeast was known to be a leaven by 1200 BC.

The assumption of the argument is a relationship between the evidence and the conclusion. Something along the lines that if there were leavens in use, then yeast was known to be a leaven.

Campisi responds by pointing out that this relationship need not be true as there could be leavens in use that are not yeast (one of many kinds of leaven). Campisi's argument does not destroy Yang's but undermines it slightly by pointing out that Yang's evidence is not strong enough to establish which kind of leaven was in use. Answer choice (B) is not one that you would necessarily jump on right away, but is accurate and better describes Campisi's response than any other answer choice.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) misdescribes Campisi's purpose. Campisi undermines Yang's argument, rather than supporting it.
(C) is too strong in that Campisi does not deny Yang's conclusion, but questions it. Furthermore in saying that Campisi finds Yang's inference unconvincing, Campisi has considered Yang's evidence.
(D) is not true. Campisi never says that one option is more likely than another, but says that Yang's evidence cannot establish his conclusion, since it fails to consider other possibilities.
(E) is not true. Campisi questions the strength of Yang's conclusion based on considering additional information. Campisi does not actually challenge Yang's evidence.

Hope that helps, and thanks ccalice21 for helping out! We like this to be a discussion amongst students and instructors together.

[mcrittell]

Does "unconvincing" mean "denying" though?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Does "unconvincing" mean "denying" though?

Not exactly, but I don't think that I implied in my discussion of answer choice (C) that those two words mean the same thing, did I?

I see "unconvincing" to mean that one has failed to prove something. Though that doesn't mean that the something is false.

I see "denying" as saying that something is in fact false.

[mitrakhanom1]

i narrowed it down to B and E. When looking at these two answer choices I couldn't really differentiate in the wording the differences. Can somebody explain these differences in wording and there meaning. I picked E on a whim. Thanks.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, mitrakhanom1!

The difference betwen (B) and (E) rests on one word in each answer choice: "presumption" vs "evidence".

In (B), "presumption" means the exact same thing as "assumption" - so this answer is suggesting the Campisi is questioning the assumption of Yang's argument.

Questioning the truth of the "evidence presented", on the other hand, means to question the premises. To question the premises, Campisi might have claimed that biblical evidence did NOT tie the use of leavens to before 1200 B.C.

Campisi didn't question Yang's premises, though - instead he suggested the the premises could be true even if the conclusion weren't. In other words, he questions the assumption Yang used to get from his premises to his "unconvincing" conclusion!

Does that help clear things up a bit?