gyfirefire
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 27
Joined: July 31st, 2010
 
 
 

Q14 - Activist: Although the environmental

by gyfirefire Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:17 am

I was debating between (A) and (C) during the test and eventually picked the wrong one "presume without justification that most of the legislators are great leaders".

Can any one help me understand why it is wrong and (c) is correct (fails to consider whether there are non-economic reasons for supporting the bill that outweigh the reason given for rejecting it.)

Thanks a lot in advance.
User avatar
 
bbirdwell
Thanks Received: 864
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 803
Joined: April 16th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - Activist: Although the environmental

by bbirdwell Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:24 pm

It all has to do with what the conclusion is.

C: Legislators should not vote for the bill.

Why? Because the bill will have mainly negative economic consequences.

This is the core of the argument. What assumptions are being made?

Well, what if there's an overwhelmingly positive social impact, and an overwhelmingly positive environmental impact that outweigh the negative economic consequences? Then, it's not such a good argument anymore.

That's why (C) is the best choice.

It really helps to boil these things down to the bare essentials. The argument really has nothing to do with whether leaders are great or not. The leaders can all be totally mediocre. Doesn't change the conclusion one bit: that they should not vote for the bill.

See what I mean?
I host free online workshop/Q&A sessions called Zen and the Art of LSAT. You can find upcoming dates here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm
 
gyfirefire
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 27
Joined: July 31st, 2010
 
 
 

Re: PT39 S2 Q14; Activist: Although the environmental bill...

by gyfirefire Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:00 am

Very clear now. "Great leaders" is just a decoy. Thanks a lot!
 
Shiggins
Thanks Received: 12
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 91
Joined: March 27th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - ; Activist: Although the environmental bill...

by Shiggins Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:11 pm

I have a question with the word "mainly" in the stimulus. It is why I had picked C.

Since it says "if" environmental bill passed -> "mainly" have negative consequences. The term "mainly" does not preclude other consequences. As oppose to it having said:

if" environmental bill passed -> "only" have negative consequences.

I just want to make sure that this is in line with seeing other results as options that could outweigh any neg effects economically, as choice C says. Is this a proper way to go about it since I am looking for clarification on the term "mainly" Since I do not think it is a strong conditional statement.
 
goriano
Thanks Received: 12
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 113
Joined: December 03rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - ; Activist: Although the environmental bill...

by goriano Fri May 25, 2012 10:53 pm

Shiggins Wrote:I have a question with the word "mainly" in the stimulus. It is why I had picked C.

Since it says "if" environmental bill passed -> "mainly" have negative consequences. The term "mainly" does not preclude other consequences. As oppose to it having said:

if" environmental bill passed -> "only" have negative consequences.

I just want to make sure that this is in line with seeing other results as options that could outweigh any neg effects economically, as choice C says. Is this a proper way to go about it since I am looking for clarification on the term "mainly" Since I do not think it is a strong conditional statement.


I have this same question! If you say "it will have ONLY negative consequences," does that preclude having any benefits as well? And can the activist not be faulted in this situation to have "failed to consider noneconomic reasons"?
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q14 - ; Activist: Although the environmental bill...

by WaltGrace1983 Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:06 pm

goriano Wrote:
Shiggins Wrote:I have a question with the word "mainly" in the stimulus. It is why I had picked C.

Since it says "if" environmental bill passed -> "mainly" have negative consequences. The term "mainly" does not preclude other consequences. As oppose to it having said:

if" environmental bill passed -> "only" have negative consequences.

I just want to make sure that this is in line with seeing other results as options that could outweigh any neg effects economically, as choice C says. Is this a proper way to go about it since I am looking for clarification on the term "mainly" Since I do not think it is a strong conditional statement.


I have this same question! If you say "it will have ONLY negative consequences," does that preclude having any benefits as well? And can the activist not be faulted in this situation to have "failed to consider noneconomic reasons"?


Someone correct me if I am wrong but if the stimulus said "It will have ONLY negative consequences if it is passed" then I don't think (C) could be right. The consequences of the bill would be ONLY NEGATIVE economic consequences. In other words, there will be no good that comes from this bill and only bad stuff. It sounds like the bill basically sucks.

However, by saying "mainly negative economic consequences" it leaves open room for other consequences, maybe positive consequences. That is why (C) is right! Ill explain...

Bill will have mainly negative economic consequences → Legislators should not vote for the bill

The activist is basing his argument on an insufficient detail. The bill will have economic consequences and those economic consequences will be "mainly negative" he says. Okay. Yet what about all the other stuff that can come from this bill? Maybe everyone will get a million dollars from this bill, unicorns will take everyone to work, and America will become a faultless utopia...well except those negative economic consequences that is. (C) shows this flaw. It says, "hey activist! You forgot a bunch of other stuff! You might want to check on that!"

As for the others...

    (A) We don't care about leadership here at all. We are more concerned about the gap between the premises and the conclusion. What is the flaw in saying that JUST BECAUSE there is mainly negative economic consequences that we SHOULD NOT vote for the bill?

    (B) Don't care about likelihood. We are talking about what we should and shouldn't do.

    (D) This is not a flaw of this argument. Who cares what they usually do. We are concerned with this bill, here and now!

    (E) This is by far the most tempting answer choice. Why? Because the "Great leaders" line seems like a premise. Well, maybe it is or maybe it was written that way. However, even if we disagree on whether or not it actually is a premise, the argument never "takes for granted" that IF popular THEN ~sound economically. It says that some great leaders are able to look past the popularity but it never actually says that popular bills are or aren't sound.
 
judy.kang020
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 8
Joined: January 07th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - ; Activist: Although the environmental bill...

by judy.kang020 Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:32 pm

WaltGrace1983 Wrote:
goriano Wrote:
Shiggins Wrote:I have a question with the word "mainly" in the stimulus. It is why I had picked C.

Since it says "if" environmental bill passed -> "mainly" have negative consequences. The term "mainly" does not preclude other consequences. As oppose to it having said:

if" environmental bill passed -> "only" have negative consequences.

I just want to make sure that this is in line with seeing other results as options that could outweigh any neg effects economically, as choice C says. Is this a proper way to go about it since I am looking for clarification on the term "mainly" Since I do not think it is a strong conditional statement.


I have this same question! If you say "it will have ONLY negative consequences," does that preclude having any benefits as well? And can the activist not be faulted in this situation to have "failed to consider noneconomic reasons"?


Someone correct me if I am wrong but if the stimulus said "It will have ONLY negative consequences if it is passed" then I don't think (C) could be right. The consequences of the bill would be ONLY NEGATIVE economic consequences. In other words, there will be no good that comes from this bill and only bad stuff. It sounds like the bill basically sucks.

However, by saying "mainly negative economic consequences" it leaves open room for other consequences, maybe positive consequences. That is why (C) is right! Ill explain...

Bill will have mainly negative economic consequences → Legislators should not vote for the bill

The activist is basing his argument on an insufficient detail. The bill will have economic consequences and those economic consequences will be "mainly negative" he says. Okay. Yet what about all the other stuff that can come from this bill? Maybe everyone will get a million dollars from this bill, unicorns will take everyone to work, and America will become a faultless utopia...well except those negative economic consequences that is. (C) shows this flaw. It says, "hey activist! You forgot a bunch of other stuff! You might want to check on that!"

As for the others...

    (A) We don't care about leadership here at all. We are more concerned about the gap between the premises and the conclusion. What is the flaw in saying that JUST BECAUSE there is mainly negative economic consequences that we SHOULD NOT vote for the bill?

    (B) Don't care about likelihood. We are talking about what we should and shouldn't do.

    (D) This is not a flaw of this argument. Who cares what they usually do. We are concerned with this bill, here and now!

    (E) This is by far the most tempting answer choice. Why? Because the "Great leaders" line seems like a premise. Well, maybe it is or maybe it was written that way. However, even if we disagree on whether or not it actually is a premise, the argument never "takes for granted" that IF popular THEN ~sound economically. It says that some great leaders are able to look past the popularity but it never actually says that popular bills are or aren't sound.


I had a question for your reasoning for AC (A).

I recognize that the "great leaders have..." is not actually the premise, but just extra information. But how do you differentiate between what IS the premise and what ISN'T?

I mean if it really was the premise, then (A) would be the correct answer as it attacks the fact that the "premise" does not support the conclusion.

To explain my incorrect way of thinking:

I narrowed down the argument core to

P: Great leaders have the courage to look beyond popularity to what is sound policy

C: legislators ought to do the same by not voting for this bill.

In this sense, it seems like the unstated premise is that great leaders <=> what legislators ought to do, otherwise, (A) may be correct.



How would I avoid this mistake next time?
 
HughM388
Thanks Received: 2
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 54
Joined: July 05th, 2020
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - Activist: Although the environmental

by HughM388 Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:18 pm

The activist referred to the bill clearly and specifically as an "environmental bill"—thereby making the explicit consideration that there are quite possibly environmental, and therefore "noneconomic," consequences to the bill. Why else describe the very nature of the bill?

If the stimulus had neglected to describe the bill in that way, or if the answer had instead suggested that the activist failed to consider that the benefits having to do with the bill's environmental impact might outweigh its economic demerits, then (C) might make some sense.