Q14 - The fact that politicians in

[clarafok]

hello,

is C wrong because 'if they had communicated more with one another when they began to work together' is something that can't be done. where as 'cut back on military spending' can still be done by the government?

thanks in advance!

[yoamols]

This one was tricky. My abstract argument for the stimulus was: "The fact that someone had X goal does not by itself explain why they picked Y. Z would have helped them reach that goal even better."

For answer choice C, I found two problems:
1. There was not that same sense of trying to reach a goal by pursuing a certain action
2. The end of answer choice C just talks about them "resolving their differences." This doesn't fit with the abstract argument of trying reaching a goal but not using the better way of doing so. This actually goes a little too far: they would have solved the problem completely if they'd just taken action earlier (whereas the stimulus says they would have been able to more effectively address the goal, not necessarily completely eliminate the spending problem).

For answer choice E however, there is that goal ("becoming famous") and the alternative that would actually have been more effective (because it's "easier") but wasn't used.

Hope that helps!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great work yoamols! Your focus on a goal and then both a path and an alternative path of accomplishing that goal, really makes answer choice (E) pop out as obvious!

[timkim750]

Yeah this question was a tricky one and one I got wrong because I just breezed through the answers thinking A was right. Funny thing too is that I had like 4-5 mins remaining when I was finished with all the questions and yet this was the only one I got wrong in the section.

Analyzing it, I chose A initially, re-picked one and chose B again, until finally I chose choice E. I found out that while all the choices have similar structures with regard to the conclusion, the real kicker here is the similarity between the stimulus's premise and the answer choice's premise. The only answer choice that has a premise along the structure or reasoning of "The reasoning is inadequate because Choice X is better than Choice Y at getting job Z done" is E. Pretty much all the other choices fail to make this comparison.

Hope my post wasn't redundant upon what the earlier poster posted but I spent a long time analyzing this problem and why I got it wrong.

[uhdang]

Forming the right abstract structure is the key to this type of question. Since it is an "abstract" structure, ways to approach this question could be different individually. I thought I'd share my way.

@ Paraphrasing would be:
Trying to reduce government spending ==> Not explain why voted to eliminate scholarship program.
Cut back military spending ==> more reduce government spending.

Try A ==> Not explain B
C ==> more A

Things to notice here would be
1) Switching position of A from sufficient to necessary condition.
2) “more” quality
3) And maybe “not explain” element.

================ Answer Analysis =================

A)
Not make money ==> Not explain Refuse buying Ex
Phyllis ==> always bought inexpensive

There is no repeating A with “more” quality.

B)
Brook’s part-time job ==> Not explain poor job in school
Many student’s part-time job ==> set aside enough time ==> maintain high grade

This looks like a mistaken negation.

C)
S and J’s different work style ==> NOT explain couldn’t work together.
Communicated each other when working together ==> Resolved difference

In a way similar to contrapositive, but not quite. And of course not repeating quality as a given stimulus.

D)
Roger wanted more companionship ==> Not explain adopted ten cats
Willing to adopt some of them ==> Not Adopted them.

This just switched Sufficient conditions for each sentence.

E)
Thelma’s goal is to become famous ==> not explain theatrical acting
Writing / directing ==> easier to become famous

1) Famous gets switched, A’s switching position
2) There is “not explain” element
3) “more” quality present.
This is it. (Correct)

[Mikey]

I thought (E) was wrong because the original stimulus is talking about ONE alternative to reduce government spending, while (E) talks about 2 ways for Thelma to become famous (writing or directing plays).

Can someone please clear this up for me? I'm still very confused about it.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey Mikey, thanks for bringing this one up for discussion! I'll take a moment and run through the entire question from start to finish.

We're asked to Match the Reasoning in the argument presented in the stimulus. Remember that the correct answer need not be a perfect match in every respect, we're asked to choose the answer that is most similar to the reasoning above.

Conclusion: The explanation for why the government reduced scholarships cannot be explained entirely by the goal of trying to reduce government spending.

Evidence: Another way of achieving the goal exists that would have been even more successful.

Answer choice (E) mirrors the reasoning in that Thelma's goal cannot entirely explain why she took up theatrical acting, since other, more effective ways of achieving that goal exist.

(A) fails to attack a a stated goal as an explanation for an observed action.
(B) fails to attack a a stated goal as an explanation for an observed action.
(C) fails to attack a a stated goal as an explanation for an observed action.
(D) provides evidence that focuses on the action, when it should have focussed on providing another means of accomplishing a stated goal.