Q13 - It is a given that

[yahoo]

Can someone please explain why A is incorrect? Is it because it's too general? Thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Not because the statement is too general, but because it's stated as a given. Remember in an argument the premises are always just assumed to be true, whereas the conclusion needs to be reached based on the truth of those premises.

Since answer choice (A) restates the first sentence and the first sentence states, "it is a given that ... ." That statement isn't proved but rather assumed to be true. So it can't represent the conclusion of the argument.

Does that make sense? Let me know if you still have any questions on this one.

[laytont]

Hello;

Could you please help me out with this question? When answering it under timed conditions I selected A. But when I went back and did it again I selected the correct answer, B. You mention that A rephrases the first sentence, but it seems to be like B just rephrases the second sentence. To be more precise, it says Constantly broadening... will ENABLE one to inspire that curiosity. Is this different than B?
Also, I find I get these types of questions wrong a lot. Anywhere you can direct me so I can do some more or study up on it more?
Thanks!

[chike_eze]

How I read this argument during timed PT,

(1) It is a given "Okay, is this the conclusion, but it says it is given..."
(2) Constantly broadening one's abilities "This could be the conclusion, but something seems missing..."
(3) For such a perpetual expansion... "Okay, I'm confused. this seems to be giving the reasoning for something -- rule this out."

Between first and second sentences... "it's a given sounds like a premise, Okay P.O.E, 'Constantly broadening' is the conclusion"

On Review:

There is a basic structure to the argument.

It is a given that X (fact, therefore not conclusion)
Constantly broadening bla-bla (leave for now)
For X,Y, Z (supporting information)

therefore, "Constantly broadening one's abilities.." must be the conclusion.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

chike_eze your process for identifying the conclusion is perfect! I remember when we first spoke in office hours, and man am I impressed with your progress. I hope this is reflecting in your practice tests!

Let me address one thing that I think is creating the confusion for laytont. Remember, that we're asked to Identify the Conclusion here - no need to interpret. So the point is to find the conclusion, just as Chike has above, and then look for the answer choice that is the best paraphrase of that claim.

So we want the correct answer to be a paraphrase of the 2nd sentence. If it paraphrased the 1st sentence, that wouldn't be the argument's conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[shirando21]

How I read this argument during timed PT,

(1) It is a given "Okay, is this the conclusion, but it says it is given..."
(2) Constantly broadening one's abilities "This could be the conclusion, but something seems missing..."
(3) For such a perpetual expansion... "Okay, I'm confused. this seems to be giving the reasoning for something -- rule this out."

Between first and second sentences... "it's a given sounds like a premise, Okay P.O.E, 'Constantly broadening' is the conclusion"

On Review:

There is a basic structure to the argument.

It is a given that X (fact, therefore not conclusion)
Constantly broadening bla-bla (leave for now)
For X,Y, Z (supporting information)

therefore, "Constantly broadening one's abilities.." must be the conclusion.

interesting and helpful! thank you.

[snich1990]

What is the difference between B and D? I can see how they're a little different when I look closely at it..but under a timed section, I'm not sure I would be able to discriminate between the answers enough to get it right.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

What is the difference between B and D? I can see how they're a little different when I look closely at it..but under a timed section, I'm not sure I would be able to discriminate between the answers enough to get it right.

Good question! This is the number one issue tested in the LR section. The more times you deal with it, the more you'll look for it, and the faster you'll get.

Answer choices (B) and (D) reverse the logic of a conditional relationship. Suppose I were to tell you that anyone who lives in Los Angeles lives in California. Does that mean that anyone who lives in California lives in Los Angeles? Of course not, and that's the same difference being exemplified in these answer choices.

The word introducing the trigger in answer choice (B) is "IF." The word in answer choice (D) introducing the requirement is "MUST."

The argument's conclusion is the second sentence. We know that the last sentence beginning with "for ..." provides evidence for the second sentence. We also know that "it is a given that ..." does not prove something, but rather assumes something and offers evidence (premises are claims simply assumed to be true and used to support another claim).

The second sentence is best expressed in answer choice (B).

Incorrect Answers
(A) represents the first premise of the argument.
(C) represents the final premise of the argument.
(D) represents the conclusion, but reverses the logic.
(E) twists the conclusion by switching the term "inspiring curiosity" with "having curiosity."

[oa246]

Just want to add here that there is a modifier issue with D as well. I initially picked D and in review, noticed the word "must" there while the stimulus says "broadening..abilities WILL ENABLE ONE". B uses the word "able" while D says "must"

This is a similar trick, I think, to parallel reasoning and a parallel flaw (matching) qs where lining up modifiers can lead to some quick eliminations, though this was definitely on the tougher side.

[shiqi0628]

i'm confused because of the word 'enable',i remembered in a previous test enable do imply a necessary condition and i specifically make notes about it...so thats why i was pissed when i found the right answer...
1.IMHO permits, enable,is consistent with.these kinds of words are definetely not sufficient enough to necessarily bring the result of 'inspire ppl's curiosity', the reason why B is right because it does not say will inspire peoples curiosity, it said it will be able to inspire curiosity, basically the same meaning of enable. thats why it passed, not becuz its a sufficient condition. otherwise i'd stab my eyes for during all these preps im under the wrong impression of enable's meaning

2.for D, i seriosuly cannot think of a adequate reason to refute it.so let's say enable can be slightly stronger than permit
A permits B----------B----->A
A enables B---------what?!im lost here, seems like not suffient not necessary. lets say A makes B possible,it seems like a necessary condition to me! than i think D is right on the spot!!

LSAT GEEKS pleeeese enlighten me on this one.Thanks a thousand in advance!

[steves]

I understand from the earlier posts that A is a premise because of the "It is a given" phrase. Without that phrase, would A become the conclusion (which is what it appears to me) or would B still be the conclusion?

[christine.defenbaugh]

I understand from the earlier posts that A is a premise because of the "It is a given" phrase. Without that phrase, would A become the conclusion (which is what it appears to me) or would B still be the conclusion?

Thanks for posting, steves!

You're right that the phrase "it is a given" firmly brands that first sentence as a premise. That does not, however, mean that removing that brand is enough to transform the sentence into a conclusion.

A conclusion is, by definition, a claim that is being supported by some other statement. If the only change that we were to make to the stimulus was removing "it is a given that", we still wouldn't have any indication that anything else in the argument was meant to support that first sentence.

In fact, the only supportive language that we see is the "for" at the beginning of the last sentence. That "for" is a premise indicator, but it's a very useful and informative one - it tells us not only that the support follows, but that we are supporting the statement that came before. The format is often this:

"I conclude that blahblahblah, for premisepremisepremise."

The interesting question here for you is: why did that first sentence read as a conclusion to you?

Was it because of the word "must"? If so, you should recognize that the word 'must' here is a conditional indicator, not a conclusion indicator.

Was it simply that the first sentence seemed like a bold thing to say, and so surely, it needs some support? If so, remember that authors use bold claims as premises all the time, without providing backup. If there's no backup/evidence provided whatsoever, then the author is using the statement, no matter how crazy, as an accepted fact.

Remember, if you think something is the conclusion of the argument, ask yourself what the author is trying to use as support. If you can't find *any* support at all, even shoddy support, then you probably aren't looking at the conclusion!

Please let me know if this helps clear things up a bit!

[steves]

Thanks, Christine. I did not realize that a conditional statement could not also be a conclusion--or is the issue more a matter of which sentence supports which?

The first sentence is - inspire > - intriguing; or intriguing > inspiring.

The second sentence is broadening + extending > inspiring

The third is broadening + extending > -comprehensible >intriguing.

Now that I look at these sentences this way, it is clearer that the third sentence would be the first premise, the first sentence would be a second premise (with or without the "it is given phrase"), supporting the second sentence as the conclusion (which is the correct answer B).

But now I'm a bit confused again since (B) is also a conditional statement.

A lot to keep in mind and figure out in 1'20"!

Steve

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks, Christine. I did not realize that a conditional statement could not also be a conclusion--or is the issue more a matter of which sentence supports which?

<snip>

But now I'm a bit confused again since (B) is also a conditional statement.

No, that's not what I meant at all!!

I simply meant that some people might look at the word 'must' and think that the strength of that word indicated a conclusion. However, the 'must' here simply tells us that the statement is a conditional. That conditional may or may not be a conclusion - we don't know yet! The point is just that the word 'must' doesn't help me figure that out.

Conditionals can absolutely be conclusions - in fact, the conclusion of this argument is one!

I'm glad to see you breaking down the argument more cleanly - that will help a lot in the future! The more comfortable you get doing that on every.single.argument, the faster you will be at it!

[DaisyA495]

Not because the statement is too general, but because it's stated as a given. Remember in an argument the premises are always just assumed to be true, whereas the conclusion needs to be reached based on the truth of those premises.

Since answer choice (A) restates the first sentence and the first sentence states, "it is a given that ... ." That statement isn't proved but rather assumed to be true. So it can't represent the conclusion of the argument.

Does that make sense? Let me know if you still have any questions on this one.

Can't something that is a given also be the conclusion to an argument? Even if that argument is accepted as the norm there could still be some wiggle room for debate. It would be like me arguing that "It is well established/it's obvious that/it is a known fact/it's a given that in order to be healthy, one must be somewhat active. Here's XYZ explanation, here's some proof from scientific sources, etc." Similarly, if I get up in front of a crowd and give my speech on being an intriguing person, I could say "Broadening one's abilities/intellectual reach enables people to inspire the perpetual curiosity of others. That sort of broadening makes it impossible to be fully comprehended, making one a constant mystery. Therefore it's a given that to be an intriguing person, one must be able to inspire the perpetual curiosity of others."

[JeremyK460]

Breakdown:
Claim 1: this is a concession and it accepts the proposition that an intriguing person must have the ability to inspire ongoing curiosity of others.

Claim 2: this is the conclusion and it asserts a modal claim that constantly extending skill and knowledge will satisfy a requirement of an intriguing person.

Claim 3: this is support for the modal claim and it asserts that people who constantly extend skill and knowledge are people who are not ever to be fully comprehended.

Claim 4: this supports the conclusion and it is a necessary outcome of being a person who is never fully comprehended.

Analysis:
Constantly extending skill and knowledge will inspire the perpetual curiosity of others

Answer Choices:
(A) This is the argument’s concession.

(B) This is the complete version of the second claim; replacing the borrowed language ‘that curiosity’ with ‘the perpetual curiosity’.

(C) This is the support and the necessary outcomes of broadening one’s ability.

(D) This takes the requirement mentioned in the first claim and conflates it with the sufficient factor mentioned in the second claim. It attempts to synthesize a term of particular quantity as sufficient to guarantee a term of universal quantity. The analogy stated above by the instructor is awesome! This is my rendition of that example:

All people who live in LA live in a coastal state.
All people who live in Miami live in a coastal state.
All people who live in a coastal state live in Miami or LA.

The ‘coastal state residents’ is an undistributed term because it only applies to some of the coastal state residents. Because it only applies to some of the group’s members, it can’t be used to make a claim about all of the group’s members. Also, this answer guarantees something that the argument establishes as suppositional.

(E) This uses terms from the second claim but predicates the self-acquisition of a certain quality whereas the argument predicates the enablement to inspire that quality in others.

[Misti Duvall]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
To be intriguing, one must inspire perpetual curiosity. Expanding one's mind makes one impossible to fully comprehend, making one a mystery to others. So expanding one's abilities/intellect will inspire pertpetual curiosity.

Answer Anticipation:
This one is all about correctly idenfying the parts of the argument. According to the indicator words ("it is a given that" and "for), the first and last sentences are premises. So the middle sentence must be the conclusion.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is tricky if you misidentified the first sentence, which is easy to do. Usually a judgment like "must" is in a conclusion. But not always. And don't read over the indicator words here: "it is a given that" means it's a premise.

(B) Bingo! This is an accurate summary of the middle sentence.

(C) Refers to the last sentence, which is a premise ("for...").

(D) Refers to the middle sentence, but reverses the logic of it. For ex, if I live in Manhattan, I live in NYC. But that doesn't mean that if I live in NYC, I live in Manhattan (cause there are four other boroughs!).

(E) Also not quite right. The conclusion was about inspiring curiousity, not having it.

Takeaway/Pattern:
If a stimulus gives you indicator words, make use of them. And make sure the answer accurately reflects the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[FaridL797]

Can anyone please explain "will"+"enable" are necessary indicators or not? I thought that the first part of the second sentence was necessary because I asked myself what "will" enable one to inspire that curiosity? And the answer is "Constantly broadening one's ability and extending one's intellectual reach". Can anyone please correct my logic and explain to me how we should correctly diagram sentences that include "will" and "enable" or only one of those. How to correctly figure out which part is sufficient and which is necessary?
Thank you in advance.