Q13 - Committee member: We should not

[sunhwa2881]

Can you please explain the difference between answer choices A and C?

[giladedelman]

I can! Thanks for the question.

Answer (A) is correct because it expresses the principle (i.e., assumption) undergirding the argument: if you'd be barred from these other important positions in the military, then you shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of the whole show.

So why is (C) different, and incorrect? Because there's a big difference between not being barred from important positions and being qualified for every important position. The argument is not saying that you need to be qualified for every single important position in order to be in charge. It's just saying that if you would be barred from some important positions, you shouldn't be the boss. There's a big difference between "not being barred" from something and being qualified to do it.

Does that answer your question?

[jionggangtu]

I was able to narrow down to A and D. But I picked D.
Why is D not correct?

[giladedelman]

So, the argument is saying that if your drinking habits would get you barred from leading a missile wing, fighter squadron, etc., then you shouldn't get to be at the top of the chain of command.

Notice that the argument is about whether someone should be placed at the top of the chain of command -- it's not about whether someone should be allowed to command fighter squadrons and such. That stuff is just used to illustrate a certain criterion.

Answer (A) makes that criterion, i.e., that principle, explicit: if your drinking habits would get you barred from leading a missile wing, then you shouldn't get to be at the top of the chain of command. If we assume this, then we get to the same conclusion as the author of the argument.

(D), on the other hand, is a little different: it's saying that anybody who drinks to excess should be barred from any command position. But we're not trying to conclude that people should be barred from any position. We're trying to conclude that if you ALREADY would be barred from these positions because of your excessive drinking, then you SHOULD be prevented from being at the tippy-top. But it might still be fine for people to drink excessively, as long as it's not so excessive that it gets them disqualified from leading fighter battalions or whatever. (I keep thinking of Randy Quaid in Independence Day.)

Let's see, we've talked about (A), (C), and (D) ... let's finish it up:

(B) is out because the argument isn't saying you have to have served at every level, just that you shouldn't have been barred from serving.

(E) is out because it 1) doesn't connect to the drinking stuff and 2) only addresses the missile wing, ignoring the other command posts the argument mentions.

Okay, hope that clears this up for everyone!

[shirando21]

Then what is the meaning and function of "Leadership must be established from the top down". does it imply that the principle we use for the top leadership positions also apply to other leadership positions? that's why I thought D is better. otherwise, the argument does not need to include this last sentence.

what do you think?

[johnsdouglass]

What allows us to make the leap from the three jobs listed to the idea that these jobs are important?

[ezraryu]

I agree with johnsdouglass that categorizing the three as "important" jobs constitutes a leap and that I could see this type of answer choice easily being a trap in other questions.

Can you please help me with how I could safely make this presumption?

[Mab6q]

I originally chose C over A but on review saw the differences between the two. Let me see if I can tackle this one.

This is a principle conform question. I like to treat these questions in a very similar manner as sufficient assumption questions. We are looking for an answer choices that justifies our argument (opinion) through the use of a principle.

Conclusion (opinion): Those who would be barred from from commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron, or a contingent of fighter jets should not be voted to the top of the military's chain of command.

WHY: Leadership must be established from the top down.

So the author is telling us that if we are going to make someone the top leader, we have to make sure he wont be barred from holding lower positions, because leadership must be established from top down.

A. gives us what we want. Barred from important positions (commanding a missile wing, ect) --> ~lead

If we take the contrapositive we get: if you lead the organization --> you cant be barren from important jobs in the organization. This conforms to the argument.

B. this answer choice is too strong. The author doesnt say you have to have served, but that you must not be barred from serving. This important distinction comes to play in the other answer choices as well.

C. Very tempting. This one got me as well. It's easy to assume that qualified and not barred mean the same thing but we have to remember that LSAT makes us pay for those kinds of mistakes. Close but no cigar.

D. think about all the ways this is different than the argument we have. The author doesnt address holding any leadership position, just holding the TOP position. In addition, this question misses the point when it focuses on drinking. The issue isnt drinking itself but being barred from certain position which dont allow drinking. This is very different than what we have in the argument.

E. on the other hand this is very limited. It speaks only of commanding a missile wing whereas the author gives us three examples.

One more way to see why E is wrong is to get the contrapositive: be at the top of command chain --> can command a missile wing.

Notice the difference between being able to commanding a missile wing and not be barred from commanding it. A subtle but very important distinction.

Hope that helps.

[jewels0602]

I'm wondering the same thing as ezraryu and john.

There seems to be a jump from listing these jobs in stim to claiming they are important. THat's what led me to chose D over A.

Also, with principle questions, we can generally go over and beyond what's stated in the stim (or at least that's what I thought, please do correct me if I'm wrong), so even though the stim doesn't talk about the chain of command, I thought it was fine to choose D because it encapsulates the tippy top of command.

So all in all, I'm still bit unsure about why A is superior to D because claiming the listed jobs are important seems to be an unwarranted leap which could be bypassed by D.

[WaltGrace1983]

I'm a bit confused on this one. I was between (A) and (E) but ultimately picked the wrong one. I think I figured it out though, can someone check me?

Person X barred from commanding MW, BS, CFJ
-->
~Vote to put Person X at top of military chain of command

The basic principle here is that if you are barred from commanding smaller entities of a unit, you shouldn't command that entire unit. A similar argument would be that if you cannot run each department at a department store individually, you should not run the store.

(A) "Important jobs" is a bit of a stretch but this seems pretty good. However, this is a very general principle that would apply to much more than just the military. Keep it anyway.

(B) Nothing in the argument is about "serving." Eliminate.

(C) "Qualified" is a bit too strong here. We are not talking about if you do or do not have the capacities to do something, we are only talking about if you would be "barred" from doing those things. Eliminate.

(D) "Anywhere along the chain of command" is a bit too strong too. That is not what the argument is saying. It is just saying that we cannot put you at the very top. Eliminate.

(E) We know that Person X cannot command a missile wing. But is this talking about "can" as in "has the intellectual ability to" or "can" as in "has the option to" (barred)? Keep it.

So here is where I was left. I was down to (A) and (E). However, I knew that this was a Principle Conform question and, unlike Principle questions that ask for the "strongest justification" or what not, I know that correct answer choices tend to be weaker, like a NA.

I didn't have too much of a problem with "important jobs," it just helped solidify my reasoning to get rid of (A). My reasoning for getting rid of (A) was basically that I felt like it was too general in relation to the more specific (E). However, I guess "can/cannot" was more akin to having the intellectual capacity to do so, not the ability (~barred) to do so. This is a subtle distinction that tripped me up.

But I am thinking more about (A) and I organized some thoughts that I think would help out with NA and these Principle-Conform questions. I know that Principle questions are more or less the same but I have heard that Principle-Justify and Principle-Conform are slightly different in their strength. For example, I think (D) would be the right answer for Principle-Justify, no?

Either way, I think I figured out why I was wrong with my saying that (E) was too general. Let me use an example to illustrate:

Apples picked from Garden X are red. Therefore, they are sweet.

Which one of the following is a principle that conforms to the above argument?

(A) Red apples are sweet.

It is true that (A) is talking about all apples in general while the argument is just talking about these specific apples in Garden X. This seems a bit out of scope from the original argument. HOWEVER, just because it goes past the scope of the argument doesn't necessarily mean it is "out of scope," if that makes sense.

Couldn't the general principle be simply that (Red Apple) --> (Sweet), not necessarily (Red Apple from Garden X) --> (Sweet). However, if I were to say that ANYTHING (Red) is also (Sweet), I seem to be out of scope, rather than simple past the scope of the argument. Yet I don't know why.

The point is that in Q13, though (A) could encompass other entities besides the military, that doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing, right?

I hope this all makes sense and if anyone has any clarification that would be awesome.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post, Walt!

A couple of thoughts. First, your careful review is so heartening to see. Keep up that great work.

I actually think principle conform and principle justify are pretty similar. Principles are broad, overarching statements. “Conform” basically means “follow” or “abide by;” in both of these question types, you are given an argument that “follows” some kind of invisible principle. Your task is to identify that overarching statement that covers the argument.

Principle conform and principle justify questions are therefore more similar to sufficient assumption questions than to necessary assumption questions.

Since you were thinking of the question as more like a necessary assumption question, your skepticism of (A) makes sense. However, the broadness of (A) here is ok. The argument does indeed “follow” / “conform to” this big statement.

You are also correct that something that goes past the scope of an argument isn’t necessarily "out of scope." If the argument fits under the umbrella of the principle, you are good to go.

In terms of (E), you make a good point about “cannot” being different from “barred.” I would add to your explanation that (E) is too narrow. The argument does not fit under this umbrella.

In sum: remember that principles are overarching statements. Big umbrella = ok.

[hayleychen12]

Since this is an Principle conform questions, I think we should treat it like a NA question.

I do think E is an overarching statement( big umbrella). But I think it only applies in Principle justify questions. Right?

[SherrilynM911]

I also, like many others, was thrown off by the appearance of the word "important." It does NOT state that these jobs are "important" ones in the stim. We may certainly assume that, but I also thought that on these sections you couldn't assume as such? When would it be alright to make such a leap vs not? It is very off-putting that for a section with such an emphasis on word choice, that they would leave this hanging.

[ChentuoZ870]

Some thoughts regarding choice A) and C):

A) says:

Not qualified for important jobs----Not lead the organization

wihle C) says:

Someone lead the organization---- one should qualfied for each important jobs

the wording of "each" might be important here, but we should also notice that:

A and C are contrapositive for each other(if we ignoring the wording here). Logically they might be equivalent, but they are nevertheless different principle.

And the stimulus says: we should not vote one to be military leader because one is barred from important jobs.

The last centense is more a irrelevant information.