Q15 - Environmentalists who seek

[jdrdek]

I was able to reduce the possible answers to A and B fairly quickly, but I chose B because I thought the "backlash" was a fundamental principle of the argument.

My thinking was that the example argument contained the following logic:
Wrong facts -> Backlash -> Negative reaction

Answer A had: Lack of evidence -> Negative reaction

Answer B had: Improper rheotric -> Backlash - Negative reaction.

Even though "Improper rhetoric" isn't the same as "wrong facts," neighter is "lack of evidence, in choice A. Thus, because A left out any backlash (the manager's negative reaction was due to a lack of information, not any vindictive conclusion), I went with B.

I can see how you might consider the manager's refusal as a type of backlash leading to a negative reaction, but as far as illustrating a principle, I'm finding it difficult to see the value of A over B.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Good question.

The original argument kinda gives us a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story.

i. if you're gonna cry wolf, you better be sure there's a wolf there
ii. because if there isn't, people aren't going to trust you when there really is a wolf there

We don't need to really translate this into conditional logic (even though your attempt to do so seemed more or less accurate).

We just need to see that an answer choice aligns with the key qualities of the original.

The correct answer choice should have similar ingredients to the original argument:
i. you should get your facts straight
ii. if your facts are wrong, people will be mad and/or won't trust you in the future

A) "should have strong evidence" is a decent, albeit not-ideal match for "should get your facts straight". "otherwise people will refuse to follow your suggestions" is a decent match for "if you're wrong, people won't trust you in the future".

B) There's no match for "should get your facts straight". Instead, they are saying "you should use cool, impartial rhetoric".

That, as you noted, is a very important difference.

There's also no match for "if your facts are wrong ...". (B) says "even if your facts are right ...". So that is also an important difference.

===
It seems like you may have gotten too attached to the idea of 'backlash', so much so that seeing that word used again in (B) made you willing to accept (B)'s flaws.

It's worth mentioning that when LSAT has us "Match" the original argument (whether it be "Match the Reasoning", "Match the Flawed Reasoning", or "Match the Illustrated Principle"), a popular kind of TRAP answer reuses language that was used in the original (or deals with the same topic, while having a different logical structure).

So the fact that (B) uses "have their facts straight" and "backlash", both of which were used in the original argument, makes me LESS likely to pick (B), not more likely.

They wouldn't want to make it that easy on us; the correct answer will use paraphrases for the original ideas, not verbatim copies.

Here was how you were evaluating some of the paraphrases:
Even though "Improper rhetoric" isn't the same as "wrong facts," neighter is "lack of evidence, in choice A. Thus, because A left out any backlash (the manager's negative reaction was due to a lack of information, not any vindictive conclusion), I went with B.

I can see how you might consider the manager's refusal as a type of backlash leading to a negative reaction, but as far as illustrating a principle, I'm finding it difficult to see the value of A over B.


"Improper rhetoric" from (B) and "lack of evidence" from (A) wouldn't be matching with "wrong facts" in the original. They would be matching up with "you should have your facts straight". The should/ought part helps orient us there.

So the choice between (A) and (B) on that level is ...
which better matches "you should be certain to have your facts straight"?
A) You should have strong evidence
B) You should use cool, dispassionate rhetoric

Neither is perfect, but (A) is much closer.

The other aspect I think you may have failed to consider was the crucial component of "for if you're wrong, bad stuff happens".

(A) matches that by saying "otherwise", while (B) contradicts that by saying "even if your facts are correct".

Hope this helps.

[jdrdek]

Thanks so much! I appreciate the thorough answer.

You're absolutely right in that I got trapped in the use of the term "backlash," and ended up making this quesiton much more complicated than it needed to be.

Thanks again!

[uhdang]

If anyone could tell me if this is the right way of approaching this question or maybe I am missing other qualities that I should have been looking for, I would really appreciate it.

In the stimulus, I spotted two elements.
- "should" quality: should be certain to have their facts straight
- "if, not" quality: if it turns out ~ lesser threat than~

So I started comparing these two qualities to the answer choices.

A)
- "should" -- should have strong evidence (match)
- "if not" -- otherwise, higher-level... (match)
>> Close to the stimulus.

B)
- "should" -- “ought to” (should) (match)
- "if not" -- “even if”, “whether or not” (no match)
>> One match but not the second

C)
- "should" -- “should” (match)
- "if not" -- “invariably”, “even when” (no match)
>> One match but not the second

D)
- "should" -- “ought to” (match)
- "if not" -- “otherwise” (match)
>> Both Match

E)
- "should" -- “should” (match)
- "if not" -- “if ~ “ (no match)
>> One match but not the second

So, between A) and D), “even when” quality is parallel in A) while D) has “simply.” So, A) is closer to the stimulus.

While I did look for other qualities when looking over the whole question and it was much more complex in my head when tacking the question, looking at these analyses, it does seem too simplified, so I can't help but feeling I should check with others.

Although it looks very mechanical here, I did look for parallel meaning as well, just like "Backlash" issue from the previous post. But since this type of question asks us for parallel "reasoning" I put less emphasis on "meaning."

[haeeunjee]

The previous posts don't really clarify this question for me (A) and (B) were just so, utterly similar to the stimulus. So here's my breakdown, hopefully it's somewhat viable:

Stim: [Subject] who has a [goal y] should do [action x]. If not, then there *will be* backlash that results in sabotaging / threatening [goal y], even though the "truth" is on the side of the [Subject.]

(A) [M-L managers] who have a [goal to ask companies to hire additional employees] should have [strong evidence]. If not, higher-level managers *will* refuse their suggestions [which is essentially discarding the M-L managers' goal], even though the "truth" is that hiring would actually benefit the company.

(B) [Politicians] who have a [goal to defend the rights of unpopular constituencies] should [use cool, dispassionate rhetoric]. If not, then the inflammatory rhetoric *can* cause more negative reasons to these constituencies [which threatens the politician's goal to defend their rights], even though the "truth" is that the politician's facts are straight. (Additional information: "whether or not these constituencies are deserving of more rights")

(A) fits nearly perfectly into this formula. There are two reasons for how (B) differs from the Stim:
1) DEGREE. "inflammatory rhetoric *can* cause a backlash." The Stim and (A) both say *will* with certainty
2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/CONCEPT. (B) touches upon both the idea of factual truth ("straight facts") and the idea of worthiness ("whether or not deserving of more rights"). (B) seems to suggest that even if his facts are straight, there is the possibility that these constituencies might not be more deserving of rights. The "facts" don't directly prove the politician is correct in his goal, and the "deserving of rights" is too vague/also does not vindicate him in his goal ("whether or not they are deserving" -- So are they deserving??).

If B said something like "Otherwise, inflammatory rhetoric will cause more negative reactions against these constituencies, even though they are deserving of more rights", I would think it would be a correct answer.