Q15 - It is not good for a university

[kmewmewblue]

I need a help please.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument gives us evidence that represents drawbacks to having large classes and to having professors who are overworked. it then goes on to conclude that it is a bad idea to have class sizes too large or too small and to have professors with very heavy or very light teaching loads.

The conclusion simply goes beyond the evidence. The evidence is fine to establish that it is a bad idea to have class sizes too large or professors with teaching loads that are too heavy. But what about the class sizes that are too small or professors with teaching loads that are too light? Evidence that would support this part of the conclusion would be useful - answer choice (C) provides something negative associated with these qualities.

Let's take a look at the incorrect answers:

(A) relates a light teaching load with something that doesn't appear to be negative. No harm here!
(B) relates a light teaching load with something that might be considered a positive. No harm here!
(D) relates a light teaching load or small classes with both something positive and something negative.
(E) relates having a teaching load with something that cannot be considered a negative, since not having more office hours is consistent with having just as many office hours.

Hope that helps, but let me know if you have further questions on this one!

[romanmuffin]

Question: I chose A because I believed professors' focus on research would detract from time they could spend with their students. Is that too much of a stretch? is a better reason to disqualify A that it only addresses light teaching loads and not both light teaching loads + small class sizes?

[noah]

You've added in your own assumption here - the idea that the goal is to spend more time with students, not do research. It's just as feasible - and happens to be true from what I've heard - that professors actually want more time for research. So, couldn't we say that (A) provides a reason that the situation - at least the light options - are good for attracting and retaining professors?

Be careful about bringing in your own assumptions!

The fact that it only deals with one issue makes it also less attractive, but the LSAT could have given us a half-useful answer since we need to find the one that most helps to justify the conclusion.

[WaltGrace1983]

Am I wrong to see a hole as being the term shift from "very large" to "overcrowded" and "very heavy teaching loads" to "overworked?"

Also, is there anything else I should know about this stem saying "most helps to justify the conclusion?" I haven't done many strengthen questions yet but this Q stem is a bit different from the norm.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're correct to notice and mentally question the language shift from "very large" to "overcrowded" and from "very heavy" to "overworked".

Sometimes we see language shifts and think, "wait a sec, those are two very different ideas. I can't use them interchangeably."

Other times we'll see language shifts and think, "well, you can pretty much treat those as synonyms."

There's no rulebook for whether you judge a language shift as egregious enough to warrant being tested or harmless enough that LSAT is going to let the author get away with it. It's just sort of your judgment call.

I don't personally find these language shifts to be that troublesome. It's true that a class could be very large without being overcrowded, and a teacher could have a very heavy workload without being overworked, but in the context of this paragraph these seem roughly like synonyms.

Just remember that our job in evaluating in argument is NOT just to consider language shifts.

The gaps/assumptions in an argument revolve around:
- missing logical links
- potential objections / alternative explanations

In this argument:
Bob is crying. Thus, he must be cutting onions.

(missing link) assumes cutting onions can make you cry
(potential objection / alt. exp) assumes Bob's dog didn't just die

Either one of those could be a correct answer (there are really an infinite number of alternative explanations for why Bob is crying that could show up in a correct answer).

The more you do LSAT problems, the better your intuition becomes for which direction the answer choices are more likely to go, but they're always allowed to go in either direction.

Consider this argument:
It is bad to eat food that's bad for you or to climb a tall mountain. After all, eating food that's low in nutrients makes your body more likely to incur diseases.

I might notice the language shift from "eating food that's low in nutrients" to "eating food that's bad for you" ... but then think, 'well, those are pretty close'. The more egregious problem in this argument seems to be that we never talk about 'climbing a tall mountain'!!

And to your other question, "most helps to justify" is pretty common for a Strengthen question. It's no different from any other Strengthen question.

"if added as a premise to the argument" is rare wording, but it just means the same thing as "if true".

Hope this helps.