Q16 - Critic: As modern methods of

[tamwaiman]

Is this a principle question?
And can you please indicate the error of (D)?
Thank you.

[bbirdwell]

Well, at first that's how I thought about it, because it mimics the language of a principle question. However, "assessments" are not really the same as principles. So, being somewhat uncertain as to exactly what's being asked, I proceed to analyzing the argument.

When I read the argument, I see these three statements:

1. pace of life has become faster -->
2. this has led to feelings of impermanence and instability -->
3. this has made us feel as if we never have enough time to achieve what we want.

At this point my strategy shifts a bit. This argument has a pretty straightforward A --> B --> C structure. These elements are presented as facts (premises), and there is no real "conclusion" here.

Seeing this, I proceed to the answer choices. Again, I still don't know exactly what they want, and that's ok -- this question doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the pre-conceived categories I had in mind. Oh well. I thought it was principle-ish, but then there was no conclusion that I could use a principle to make true.

So now my focus is switched a bit, and I'm thinking this is more like an inference question. Either way, I'm just going to use my LSAT brain to choose an answer choice that matches the argument. Given the language of the question (conforms), this seems the best strategy, rather than trying to cram the question into some notion of "category" that I think it needs to fit into.

(A) hmm. Tempting. I'm not sure if "make us feel we never have enough time" is a good logical match for "more difficult." I'll leave it for now.

(B) eliminate. There is no comparison made between advantages and disadvantages.

(C) hmm. This seems totally supported, and feels eerily like a good answer for an inference question. It's totally supported by the argument, so I have to leave it for now.

(D) eliminate. The argument does not state what's causing us not to know what we want. Two categories are mentioned: what we want, and what we think we want. But that's it. We can infer from the argument that sometimes people know what they want, and sometimes people think they know what they want. But the argument does not say what CAUSES us to think we know what we want, or not.

It just says that the perception of impermanence makes us feel like we don't have enough time. That's it.

(E) not even close.

Now I'm down to A and C, and at this point, my LSAT brain says I need to choose the answer that is MOST supported by the argument, with as little wiggle room for assumptions as possible. That choice is C. Difficulty is too far a stretch to be supported, and C is very straightforwardly supported with no need for extra assumptions. Notice the softness of "can." In this situation, that's a dead giveaway that this is a better answer than A.

If you look carefully at the stimulus, you'll notice that there is a potential correlation/causation issue. Perhaps the pace of life affected the methods of communication (doubtful, but possible). This might lead you to discount (C). However, we're not asked to identify a perfect match--we're asked to find what most closely conforms. Furthermore, we need the stimulus to conform to the answer; with (C), there is no contradiction or scope issues.

[LSAT-Chang]

I honestly didn't notice the "difficulty" stretch in answer choice (A) but I can see how that is a stretch, but I thought "goals" was way too big of a stretch as well -- thoughts???

[yoohoo081]

1. pace of life has become faster -->
2. this has led to feelings of impermanence and instability -->
3. this has made us feel as if we never have enough time to achieve what we want.
(C) hmm. This seems totally supported, and feels eerily like a good answer for an inference question. It's totally supported by the argument, so I have to leave it for now.

Quick question as to why you crossed out D. If C is true, we just infered that Tech Changes-> Change feelings.

But, D has the right parts. 2-> 3 .
Can't you infer that the critic's statements are connected through 2->3?

However, I'm guessing D is not the right answer simply because it actually doesn't contain the Tech Changes??
could you clarify please

[maryadkins]

But, D has the right parts. 2-> 3 .
Can't you infer that the critic's statements are connected through 2->3?

However, I'm guessing D is not the right answer simply because it actually doesn't contain the Tech Changes??
could you clarify please

Careful about thinking that "more difficult for people to know what they want" (the language in (D)) is the same thing as not feeling we have enough time to achieve what we want (the language in the stimulus). Even with that last caveat in the stimulus about "what we think we want," the stimulus does not say that tech makes it harder to KNOW what we want. That's a different issue than feeling we don't have time.

[chiach2]

Im very confused on this question, and the explanations already given for this problem dosent seem to click for me. Can someone please help me see exactly why C is right and A and D are wrong.

I initially choose B then changed my answer to A, my thinking was that we could assume "difficult" in the answer choice to mean "..created feelings of impermanence and instability, making us feel.." in the stimulus.
And if we cant make that assumption, I figured it would have been an even further logical jump to assume "modern methods of communication and transportation" means "technological changes" (answer choice C"

Furthermore on D, i find it hard how to see how that second sentence dosent make this answer choice right? Stimulus states "This speed has created feelings of impermanence and instability, MAKING US FEEL as if we never have enough time to achieve....what we think we want".
Im not getting how D isnt supported.
An manhattan employee can you please explain.

[rostov]

The problem with A is that it says the difficulty is real, when the problem only says that we feel as though we never have enough time.

[economienda]

I know (D) is extremely tempting but it can be eliminated simply because of the word "know" in describing what we want which is not found in the stimulus.

The stimulus explicitly uses the words "feelings" and "feel" and "think" when describing what we want. In a way, it suggests that we *DON'T* know what we want.

Those feelings of "impermanence and instability" create false feelings (desires or wants, if you will). Very similar to the way cocaine or alcohol create false feelings (desires or wants). I mean, haven't you ever gotten drunk to the point where you think you want something at that time, but wouldn't have had those feelings without alcohol?. Would you say you knew what you wanted?

(D) is also tempting because it says: "The perception of impermanence in contemporary life," and you may think that's the same as the "created feelings of impermanence [by the pace of life]."

But the word "perception" can be best defined as "understanding or interpreting something" which is different from having feelings about something—in particular, false feelings (i.e. false desires or wants) which is what the stimulus suggests.

[jm.kahn]

If you look carefully at the stimulus, you'll notice that there is a potential correlation/causation issue. Perhaps the pace of life affected the methods of communication (doubtful, but possible). This might lead you to discount (C). However, we're not asked to identify a perfect match--we're asked to find what most closely conforms. Furthermore, we need the stimulus to conform to the answer; with (C), there is no contradiction or scope issues.

If I understand this reasoning, the choice that assumes causation when the evidence exists only for the correlation in the MSS question stim is being justified. Isn't this is exactly the sort of trap answer that lsat doesn't want a good test taker to accept.

Can some expert please resolve this correlation in stim but causation in answer choice issue? As far as I know, no lsat MSS question will ask you to make that big a leap of an assumption.

[ganbayou]

Well, at first that's how I thought about it, because it mimics the language of a principle question. However, "assessments" are not really the same as principles. So, being somewhat uncertain as to exactly what's being asked, I proceed to analyzing the argument.

When I read the argument, I see these three statements:

1. pace of life has become faster -->
2. this has led to feelings of impermanence and instability -->
3. this has made us feel as if we never have enough time to achieve what we want.

At this point my strategy shifts a bit. This argument has a pretty straightforward A --> B --> C structure. These elements are presented as facts (premises), and there is no real "conclusion" here.

Seeing this, I proceed to the answer choices. Again, I still don't know exactly what they want, and that's ok -- this question doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the pre-conceived categories I had in mind. Oh well. I thought it was principle-ish, but then there was no conclusion that I could use a principle to make true.

So now my focus is switched a bit, and I'm thinking this is more like an inference question. Either way, I'm just going to use my LSAT brain to choose an answer choice that matches the argument. Given the language of the question (conforms), this seems the best strategy, rather than trying to cram the question into some notion of "category" that I think it needs to fit into.

(A) hmm. Tempting. I'm not sure if "make us feel we never have enough time" is a good logical match for "more difficult." I'll leave it for now.

(B) eliminate. There is no comparison made between advantages and disadvantages.

(C) hmm. This seems totally supported, and feels eerily like a good answer for an inference question. It's totally supported by the argument, so I have to leave it for now.

(D) eliminate. The argument does not state what's causing us not to know what we want. Two categories are mentioned: what we want, and what we think we want. But that's it. We can infer from the argument that sometimes people know what they want, and sometimes people think they know what they want. But the argument does not say what CAUSES us to think we know what we want, or not.

It just says that the perception of impermanence makes us feel like we don't have enough time. That's it.

(E) not even close.

Now I'm down to A and C, and at this point, my LSAT brain says I need to choose the answer that is MOST supported by the argument, with as little wiggle room for assumptions as possible. That choice is C. Difficulty is too far a stretch to be supported, and C is very straightforwardly supported with no need for extra assumptions. Notice the softness of "can." In this situation, that's a dead giveaway that this is a better answer than A.

If you look carefully at the stimulus, you'll notice that there is a potential correlation/causation issue. Perhaps the pace of life affected the methods of communication (doubtful, but possible). This might lead you to discount (C). However, we're not asked to identify a perfect match--we're asked to find what most closely conforms. Furthermore, we need the stimulus to conform to the answer; with (C), there is no contradiction or scope issues.

So I think "as if" and "at least" in the stimulus is the keys?
As if=not real,
At least=real, but this is not what is mentioned in A, so that's why A is incorrect, and C is wrote in an abstract way so reflect both "as if" and "at least" statements...
Is this understanding correct??

Thank you

[maryadkins]

I'm not sure I understand your question. I think answer choice (C) is wrong for the reasons listed above in the thread..."difficult" and "goals" don't necessarily follow.

"As if" refers to how people are feeling, whether it's "real" or not isn't really an issue...but since t's about feelings, and (C) references feelings, (C) is correct.

[mswang7]

A. This requires a leap from the feelings of impermanence/ instability -> achieve goals.
B. Often is too strong. I actually misread this as can the first time around and picked this answer.
C. This is true - argument provided 1 example of this incidence
D. impermanence makes people feel like they don't have enough time to achieve what they want/know they want. This answer omits the time part, thereby changing the meaning of the casual relationship
E. This an illegal reversal. The argument is something about technological adv changing feelings, not the other way around.

[Laura Damone]

A couple of notes on your process:

I think the leap that A is making is a little more subtle than what you describe. The last sentence tells us that feelings of impermanence and instability make us feel as though we never have time to achieve what we want, i.e. our goals. But that's not the same thing as actually making our goals more difficult to achieve.

Regarding B, I agree that it is a more tempting answer if you replace "often" with "can," but there is still a good reason to eliminate it. Although we know for sure that there can be disadvantages of technological processes, the stimulus doesn't say whether or not these outweigh the advantages.

[HughM388]

With questions 10, 16, 21, and 25 being irredeemable and all in one place, this section probably has the largest single grouping of bad LR questions in existence.

For example, while (C) is obviously the most LSAT-safe answer among the options here, it's actually not the most supportable, according to the information in the stimulus. Leaving aside the sloppiness inherent in the reference to "people" in (C) ("people" as individual persons, or "people" as a species?), the stimulus provides us with no information about how such people used to feel (earlier in their lives, or in previous epochs?), so we can make absolutely no valid inferences about "changes" to their feelings. It is highly plausible that people—within and throughout their own lives, or in general across the ages—have always experienced feelings of impermanence and instability as a result of the perceived pace of life—so that there has been no change.

Meanwhile, (A) probably makes a more pertinent assessment. I think it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that, if people feel that they "never have enough time to achieve" what they want, those goals are made more difficult to achieve, in this case by the fast pace of modern life, which caused those feelings about a lack of time. This is eminently plausible: the LSAT itself creates a similar feeling of insufficient time, and is thereby made more difficult.