Q16 - Electronic media are bound to

[wayne_palmer10]

I didn't see the sufficient/necessary flaw in the stimulus, so I was surprised that (D) was the correct answer. Could you please explain this? Thanks.

[noah]

The media consultant concludes that electronic media will end traditional schools in our culture (to the delight of many children, no doubt). The evidence is that because books are cheap and readily available, it made the format of the traditional school easy to use. Now, however, the role that books played in communicating information is being filled by electronic media -- us communicating on this forum is a great example!

The problem with this argument is that just because books helped make possible ("facilitated") the traditional format of schools does not mean that the format required books. Perhaps there are other, more important reasons for having schools the way they are (i.e. efficient use of shared resources, or perhaps because it is a model of the workplace, so schools serve to train children how to be successful employees). Furthermore, maybe electronic media will support the traditional format. (D) summarizes this issue since the consultant mistakes books for something that is necessary for traditional schools, when all we know is that it was helpful in the development of that type of school.

(A) is typically tempting: it sounds like fancy formal logic. However, the argument does not assume that schools will end, it offers evidence to prove it (albeit with flaws).
(B) is unsupported. There is no expert testimony.
(C) is unsupported. The consultant does not show that schools can close.
(E) is out of scope. There is no discussion of the value of schools.

Does that help?

[netkorea06]

I understand why the answer is (D) but I am still having a hard time understanding why not (C). you said (C) is unsupported. The consultant does not show that schools can close. However, at the end of the passage, the author says it is inevitable that the traditional school will not survive. Isn't that the same as the schools can close?

[noah]

Good question! That's very lawyerly-thinking. Saying something is inevitable does suggest that it's also possible, but the question here is whether the consultant argues that schools will close simply from the fact that they can close. Instead, the consultant actually provides a premise for why the schools will close (the fact about books).

If an argument were to demonstrate (C), it would be something like this:

While we feel that they are permanent fixtures in our lives, the truth is that traditional schools can close. Thus, it is inevitable that they will.

So, in the final analysis (until you ask another question about it!), (C) is unsupported because it does not reflect that actual nature of the argument.

Does that make sense?

[chike_eze]

I think this is the first time I've come across this variation of the Mistaken Sufficient/Necessary flaw. During my timed PT, I pegged the flaw as sufficient/necessary so (D) it was. But on review, and after reading comments on this post, I'm not so sure.

Flaw:
Inexpensive books enabled traditional schools
therefore,
Inexpensive books is required by traditional schools

This is different from the traditional...
X guarantees (is sufficient) for Y
therefore,
X is required (is necessary) for Y

My instinct is that "enabled" or "facilitated" is not equivalent to "sufficient"... but can anyone expand on the use of words like "facilitated" and "enabled" in the context of sufficient/necessary conditions?

Cos I think if I'd paid more attention during my timed PT, I would have spent 30 more seconds trying to figure out why this flaw felt kinda different from the traditional "Mistaken Sufficient for Necessary" flaw. ( Would have wasted precious time... )

Thanks!

[noah]

Notice that the answer doesn't use "sufficient" - so the LSAT isn't necessarily equating "facilitated" with "sufficient."

I agree with your gut instinct that "facilitated" is not synonymous with "sufficient." I'd also be wary of equating "enabled" with "sufficient" as well, since someone can enable someone else's addictive behavior, for example, but not be sufficient.

[asafezrati]

I can see that 'enable' isn't sufficient or necessary, but -

Enable - give someone or something the authority of means to do something, make possible. (New Oxford American dictionary)

It seems to be stronger than 'facilitate'.

Even though this question was relatively easy for me, I was a bit puzzled by this. English isn't my native language. Help?

[mornincounselor]

This is a very interesting question.

I initially eliminated choice D, in part, because I felt the correct choice would say "mistakes something that enables an institution to arise for something sufficient to ensure the institution to arise"

If the new emergence of electronic media was sufficient to ensure new institutions arise then, as a consequence, the traditional institutions would falter, but the argument only says electronic media enables a new institution, not that it is sufficient to create one.

Would that choice also be correct for this question?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm confused where you think it says this:
"but the argument only says electronic media enables a new institution, not that it is sufficient to create one. "

The stimulus never says that EM enables a new institution. The argument only says "electronic media will gradually take over the function of books in communicating information".

It doesn't connect electronic media to new institutions in any way. I think you might be adding in an assumption your brain heard en route from that claim to the conclusion.

I was also a little confused by this:
"If the new emergence of electronic media was sufficient to ensure new institutions arise then, as a consequence, the traditional institutions would falter"

I'm not sure we can make that inference either. Can't new institutions arise alongside of the traditional ones? Why does the emergence of new institutions guarantee the faltering of traditional ones?

If I learn Spanish, that doesn't necessarily mean that I forget English. I might just know multiple languages. Similarly, our culture might just now have multiple educational options: traditional schools and newly arising ones.

The final two sentences represent this move:
EM will gradually replace books ---> Traditional school will not survive

Why does EM have to do with the traditional school?
Don't know. The argument never said.

What does "replacing books" have to do with the traditional school?
Well, the author told us that "books" were involved with the emergence of the "traditional school".

So it seems like the author is focused on how books and the traditional school are connected.

Books were part of the emergence of the traditional school.
So he assumes that if books become obsolete, so too will the traditional school.

In regards to the previous poster's question about "enable" being a bad synonym for "facilitate", I agree it's weird. But, having looked up the definitions, a secondary definition of "enable " is 'too make easier', which is the definition of "facilitate".

[donghai819]

Hi,

I'm a little bit confused of Noah's explanation on D. Yes, D definitely points out the flaw that inexpensive books are necessary to the establishment of traditional school. It also makes sense for me that there would be many factors contributing to the establishment. My question is: it seems for me the flaw is on premise and thus has little, if not nothing, to do with the conclusion--"it is inevitable that the traditional school will not survive in our culture."

If anyone can help? Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

There’s no requirement that a correct answer to a flaw question go against the conclusion explicitly. It can go against a subsidiary conclusion, or an assumption, or (gasp: once ever, as far as I’ve seen) a premise!

This flaw is going against an assumption. The author apparently assumes that
“traditional school requires printed books” … how do we know this?

Well, how else would he GET to his conclusion?

The leap he’s making is
NO more printed books —> NO more traditional school

The contrapositive is
Traditional school —> printed books
which can be read as “traditional school requires printed books”.

So (D) still has a lot to do with the conclusion, because it attacks the final move from premise to conclusion, and “attacking the MOVE” is what Flaw is most frequently doing.

Another way to look at it is through the lens of opposing counsel. THIS guy says “the traditional school won’t survive”, so we need to argue, “the traditional school WILL survive”.

The author will say, “How can it survive? Electronic media is replacing printed books, which helped the traditional school to begin!”

We might say, using (D)’s idea, “Sure, but just because printed books helped the traditional school to begin doesn’t mean that if we take away printed books we lose the traditional school!”

[AbhiC801]

Isn't the first statement of stimulus "Everything.....culture." a premise here. And if it is, why is answer choice (A) incorrect?

To me this question looks very similar to PT 36, S1, Q10. If the answer there is (C), shouldn't it be (A) here, what's the difference?

Please help!!

[EricW539]

The media consultant concludes that electronic media will end traditional schools in our culture (to the delight of many children, no doubt). The evidence is that because books are cheap and readily available, it made the format of the traditional school easy to use. Now, however, the role that books played in communicating information is being filled by electronic media -- us communicating on this forum is a great example!

The problem with this argument is that just because books helped make possible ("facilitated") the traditional format of schools does not mean that the format required books. Perhaps there are other, more important reasons for having schools the way they are (i.e. efficient use of shared resources, or perhaps because it is a model of the workplace, so schools serve to train children how to be successful employees). Furthermore, maybe electronic media will support the traditional format. (D) summarizes this issue since the consultant mistakes books for something that is necessary for traditional schools, when all we know is that it was helpful in the development of that type of school.

(A) is typically tempting: it sounds like fancy formal logic. However, the argument does not assume that schools will end, it offers evidence to prove it (albeit with flaws).
(B) is unsupported. There is no expert testimony.
(C) is unsupported. The consultant does not show that schools can close.
(E) is out of scope. There is no discussion of the value of schools.

Does that help?

Can you help me understand how the last and first sentence are not circular? I cannot tell how they relate to each other. I found A actually tempting because they seem to both be conclusion and use such similar wording. The first sentence is followed by "this is because", while the last sentence uses "so."

If the argument is taken in it's entirety, and you cannot have two main conclusions, then one would have to be a sub-conclusion, which is in effect a premise. Thus, it would seem that it could be circular.

[JeremyK460]

Can you help me understand how the last and first sentence are not circular? I cannot tell how they relate to each other. I found A actually tempting because they seem to both be conclusion and use such similar wording. The first sentence is followed by "this is because", while the last sentence uses "so."

If the argument is taken in it's entirety, and you cannot have two main conclusions, then one would have to be a sub-conclusion, which is in effect a premise. Thus, it would seem that it could be circular.

https://iep.utm.edu/argument/

command+f "convergent"

read about argumentative structure: specifically, 'linked premises vs convergent premises'

ask yourself if this argument has linked or convergent premises