Q15 - Dr. Z: Many of the characterizations

[Ejd5050]

I am having difficulty understanding how we can infer the credited response E from this stimulus.

Let us assume that exactly one characterization fails. Exactly one fulfills at least one, but it does not fulfill the "many" from the stimulus. Isn't many plural? Wouldn't an accurate inference require that more than one of the characterizations fail? This is why I crossed off 'E'.

Please help!

[noah]

Great question - it's helpful that you wrote out your thinking. I think I see where you're heading off track a bit. I'll address it below:

In the stimulus we learn that many characterizations are imprecise, and all those imprecise ones are inadequate. (Note that I'm shaving off details, which can be dangerous in real time, but is also often necessary for moving fast.)

Our job with this question is to find an answer that must be true. We can infer (E) - there must be at least one inadequate characterization. With many being imprecise, and each and every one of those imprecise characterizations being inadequate, we can't avoid but have at least one be inadequate.

In fact, as the original poster mentioned, we could even infer that there are two or more. However, if we know that there are two or more, we surely can say that there is at least one. If (E) has stated that there is exactly one inadequate characterization, then it would be incorrect.

(A) is tempting, but we don't know if there are any adequate characterizations. The stimulus only tells us about inadequate ones.

(B) is similar to (A) - we don't know anything about the precise characterizations (or, more technically, the "not imprecise" ones!).

(C) is reversed logic. While we know that the imprecise ones are inadequate, there may be inadequate ones that are precise, but inadequate for other reasons.

(D) is too broad. We only know about the suspiciously named Dr. Z and Dr. Q.

That clear it up?

[kumsayuya]

Hi, here is it explaining to myself while I was drilling before I checked the answer key.

107.

(A) and ( E) were pretty tricky. Think I differentiated them properly though.

A. Some provide an adequate basis .. does this have to be true though? He says many offered do not, but never says anything about there being some that DO provide an adequate basis. From what I understand, many can include ALL, so therefore, he could very well be saying that many (or all ) are imprecise or in some other way do not provide a good basis for being criticism of his work.

B. Being precise is a necessary condition for being adequate basis for sound criticism – NOT sufficient! Common trap on answer choices for these types of questions where they say something is necessary to another event to occur

C. Not necessarily, because it tells us that imprecise characterizations are definitely not grounds for critiquing someone’s work – but at the same time, being precise isn’t necessarily enough to make it a sound basis for criticism – it could be precise, but also not provide adequate basis for sound criticism. In short, it is doing what answer choice (B) did which is trying to confuse the necessary and sufficient conditions – being imprecise is sufficient to make it a bad criticism, but being precise isn’t sufficient to make it a good criticism – it’s a quality that is necessary for a sound criticism, however.

D. AGAIN! Sufficient and necessary confusion – just because its precise, its not SUFFICEINT, but this is the quality necessary for a good criticism

E. Okay so I think this MUST be true based on the stimulus. Basically Dr. Z is saying that some characterizations offered were imprecise, and therefore, not a good basis for criticism – so, doesn’t this mean that there must at the very LEAST be one that is not a good basis for criticism?

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Dr.Q's C <--- S ----> I --> ~ ABSC

(A) Could be true but this is not inferable from the stimulus
(B) Again, this may be true but need not be true given what we're told in the stimulus. We're only told about Dr.Q's imprecise characterizations.
(C) This is just the reverse of the last conditional statement in the stimulus. Not inferable.
(D) Whose work? No this is way out of the scope of the stimulus. Even if "someone" were replaced with Dr. Q it'll still be wrong, it's essentially saying ~ I --> ABSC, just a negation of the last conditional statement
(E) Bingo. If Dr.Q's C <--- S ----> I --> ~ ABSC then we can infer that Dr. Q's C <---s ---> ~ABSC

[PepitoH84]

(A) is tempting, but we don't know if there are any adequate characterizations. The stimulus only tells us about inadequate ones.

I don't understand why "many" can mean all of them or just one of them? When you have one cell phone in your pocket do you say I have many cell phones in my pocket or just one?; or when you have many guidebooks to study for the LSAT in your library, do you say I have many guidebooks to study for the LSAT or all of my books are guidebooks to study for the LSAT, what about if you have in addition the Bible, Romeo and Juliet, or any other book that has nothing to do with the LSAT? are you still thinking that many of my books are actually all of my books?