Q16 - Political scientist: The dissemination of

[timmydoeslsat]

I had to use process of elimination to arrive at this answer.

I am now doing my review of this timed section I did, and I simply do not like answer choice E here.

I would like to understand this one more.

The stimulus is:

In principle, the spread of political theories is able to cause change in existing political structures.

All political theories formed in a university, which leads to difficult language, which alienates many outside of a university that would be an important agent of change.

Therefore, there is a special role for those outside of a university to make the language clear.


The core I was thinking about in my mind was that convoluted language in a political theory caused those outside of academia to be alienated ---> Therefore there is special role for those outside of academia to make that language clear

I was thinking to myself, why is there a special role for these people? Why can't those who wrote the language in the theory initially, write in a different way for all people to understand.

I believe this is what (E) is driving at obviously, but to me, it strikes me of not being necessary.

If I were to negate E:

Persons within academic settings are not less willing or less able than persons outside to write in a straightforward way.

I understand there are times in which it is beneficial to look at the necessity of an assumption not only by looking at the conclusion given, but by the ties of which its evidence is attached.

However, even with doing so, I am intrigued to hear why it is necessary for there to be a relative comparison of those within academic settings and those without, with it being the case that those within are at the lower end of this comparison.

I sense that the reasoning is that if it were true that those within academic settings were less willing or able than those outside academic settings, then how could we justify there being a special role for those outside to make the language easier.

Is this reasoning correct?

[chiach2]

Hey fellow LSATers,

Can someone please explain to me how answer choice "E" is right and more specifically how answer choice choice"B" is wrong?

This is an assumption question and based off of the stimulus it seems as though "E" is merely restating the premise ("all political theories...leading to convoluted language that is alienating...important agents of change" How is "E" any different from implications of that sentence, and how come "B" isn't the assumption?

Hopefully someone can help break this down to me. Thank You all so much!!!

[KakaJaja]

Hey Chiach, this is what I think about B and E:

First, the argument states: Premise 1) Political theories are formulated in universities, so that the language they use is convoluted and alienates the people outside. Premise 2) People outside are the ones important to social changes. Conclusion: People outside should rewrite the theories in simpler language.

So there is a question, why it is the responsibility of the people outside to rewrite the theories? Yes, the theories are formulated in university in complicated language, but can the scholars just explain it with plain language?

So to draw the conclusion, it is necessary that people in university are less willing or less able to write straightforward, which is E.

B is not a necessary condition. ppl within academic may formulate the theories due to multiple reasons, like they are really into the theoretical study, or they want to get promotion by putting forwards more theories.... they don't have to have the intention to change the society. It is just objectively, the theories have such function.

[crazinessinabox]

The other potential issue I see with (E) is that it struck me as quite broad: academics are less willing/able to "write in a straightforward way." This seems to apply to writing beyond just political theories. My thought was that academics could still in theory be able to write in a straightforward way, but there is something about the nature of political theories that makes academics incapable of writing clearly within that genre, which is what the rest of the argument is restricted to.

However, my thought is that in order to conclude that non-academics have a "special role" relative to academics, we must bridge the gap between: all political theories written in university settings --> convoluted language, which (E) does. If academics were capable or willing to write clearly, then the language wouldn't necessarily be convoluted and non-academics wouldn't have a "special role" anymore.

Let me know what you think (especially if there's something unclear/not quite right). Thanks!

[wj097]

B is not a necessary condition. ppl within academic may formulate the theories due to multiple reasons, like they are really into the theoretical study, or they want to get promotion by putting forwards more theories.... they don't have to have the intention to change the society. It is just objectively, the theories have such function.

Adding onto this point, in order to connect the premise (something is convoluted, alienating agents) to the conclusion (someone needs to fix it) - overly overly dumbed down, but for the purpose to illustrate my point it should be OK - we need an assumption that somehow establish that alienating is bad or should not alienate, since if not (negation test) then on earth do we need to fix it, just leave it as it is...so the point is that someone in the stimulus needs to believe that "there needs an attempt to change existing social structure". However, the reason why (B) is wrong, to me, is the one who attempts is ACADEMIA PPL and not the arguer aka POLITICAL SCIENTIST.

However, my thought is that in order to conclude that non-academics have a "special role" relative to academics, we must bridge the gap between: all political theories written in university settings --> convoluted language, which (E) does. If academics were capable or willing to write clearly, then the language wouldn't necessarily be convoluted and non-academics wouldn't have a "special role" anymore.

Let me know what you think (especially if there's something unclear/not quite right). Thanks!

(E) is necessary, but I have disagreement as to why. I don't think you need to connect "all political theories written in university settings" --> "convoluted language" since it already is stated explicitly that "political theories written in univ setting leads to convoluted language".

As for other answer choices
(A) MOST IMPORTANT??
(C) BETTER LEFT OUT??
(D) GAINING MORE??

Geeks please whip out your logic force, if error

Thx

[patrice.antoine]

Conclusion: There is a special role for persons outside university setting to render political theory into accessible/concise language.

Why/Premise: Political theories are formed in educationally privileged settings of the university, resulting in convoluted language that alienates many individuals outside academia who may be important agents of change.


The gap is between this concise language brought into the conclusion and those individuals within academia. Answer choice (E) fills in that gap nicely.

Answer choice (B) is a premise booster and does nothing to help the reasoning behind the conclusion.

[patrice.antoine]

If I were to negate E:

Persons within academic settings are not less willing or less able than persons outside to write in a straightforward way.

I understand there are times in which it is beneficial to look at the necessity of an assumption not only by looking at the conclusion given, but by the ties of which its evidence is attached.

However, even with doing so, I am intrigued to hear why it is necessary for there to be a relative comparison of those within academic settings and those without, with it being the case that those within are at the lower end of this comparison.

I sense that the reasoning is that if it were true that those within academic settings were less willing or able than those outside academic settings, then how could we justify there being a special role for those outside to make the language easier.

Is this reasoning correct?

Precisely the same reasoning I used (re: bolded). There would be no need for a special role for persons outside university setting if those individuals in academia are willing to write political theory in a straightforward (ie concise way). Negating (E) destroys our argument.

[WaltGrace1983]

It seems like (A)→(D) are answer choices that are tricky with a less-than-full understanding of the core - I could be wrong.

I interpreted the core to be this:

All political theories are convoluted and alienating to those outside academia
→
There is a special role outside of academia to render this language accessible and clear

I think the main phrase is one about there being a "special role." Something that I have noticed in these necessary assumption questions (and I guess you could probably say most other assumption Q's) is that there is often one key word or phrase that, when you understand it, your thinking is much more easily shaped to the thinking of the LSAT writers. "overall," "most," "any," etc. I think in this case, if we recognize that we are talking about something special - something distinct, something unique - than we can see where this argument is going: the argument is assuming that these political theorists in the university setting aren't willing, aren't able, aren't going to, etc. make this language "clear and accessible" on their own! If we assume the negation of that, why would the role be "special?" After all, the political theorists were going to do it themselves!

If we look at (A)→(D), we get some matching language but not any that gets to the real meat of the argument. The argument is focused on the language and the process of these political theories and really nothing else.

(E) is correct because, if negated, it shows why these roles aren't "special." That is, even if the language is convoluted and inaccessible, so what? Perhaps one draft will be hard to follow but these theorists are going to concurrently come out with the latest "Political Theory for Dummies" book.

[maryadkins]

Good job, Walt! Yes, well done:

It seems like (A)→(D) are answer choices that are tricky with a less-than-full understanding of the core - I could be wrong.

I interpreted the core to be this:

All political theories are convoluted and alienating to those outside academia
→
There is a special role outside of academia to render this language accessible and clear

I think the main phrase is one about there being a "special role." Something that I have noticed in these necessary assumption questions (and I guess you could probably say most other assumption Q's) is that there is often one key word or phrase that, when you understand it, your thinking is much more easily shaped to the thinking of the LSAT writers. "overall," "most," "any," etc. I think in this case, if we recognize that we are talking about something special - something distinct, something unique - than we can see where this argument is going: the argument is assuming that these political theorists in the university setting aren't willing, aren't able, aren't going to, etc. make this language "clear and accessible" on their own! If we assume the negation of that, why would the role be "special?" After all, the political theorists were going to do it themselves!

If we look at (A)→(D), we get some matching language but not any that gets to the real meat of the argument. The argument is focused on the language and the process of these political theories and really nothing else.

(E) is correct because, if negated, it shows why these roles aren't "special." That is, even if the language is convoluted and inaccessible, so what? Perhaps one draft will be hard to follow but these theorists are going to concurrently come out with the latest "Political Theory for Dummies" book.

This was also an excellent explanation of (E) versus (B):

Hey Chiach, this is what I think about B and E:

First, the argument states: Premise 1) Political theories are formulated in universities, so that the language they use is convoluted and alienates the people outside. Premise 2) People outside are the ones important to social changes. Conclusion: People outside should rewrite the theories in simpler language.

So there is a question, why it is the responsibility of the people outside to rewrite the theories? Yes, the theories are formulated in university in complicated language, but can the scholars just explain it with plain language?

So to draw the conclusion, it is necessary that people in university are less willing or less able to write straightforward, which is E.

B is not a necessary condition. ppl within academic may formulate the theories due to multiple reasons, like they are really into the theoretical study, or they want to get promotion by putting forwards more theories.... they don't have to have the intention to change the society. It is just objectively, the theories have such function.

[donghai819]

I think this question in abstract language:

People create A to do B. A can't do B because one of characteristic of A prevents A from doing B. C can build up a bridge between A and B. So A is necessary.

The necessary assumption is "people" do not include the characteristic of C.

There is another question about "major power, united nation, charter, and 5 countries that can veto in UN" in a very similar manner.

[HughM388]

It seems like (A)→(D) are answer choices that are tricky with a less-than-full understanding of the core - I could be wrong.

I interpreted the core to be this:

All political theories are convoluted and alienating to those outside academia
→
There is a special role outside of academia to render this language accessible and clear

I think the main phrase is one about there being a "special role." Something that I have noticed in these necessary assumption questions (and I guess you could probably say most other assumption Q's) is that there is often one key word or phrase that, when you understand it, your thinking is much more easily shaped to the thinking of the LSAT writers. "overall," "most," "any," etc. I think in this case, if we recognize that we are talking about something special - something distinct, something unique - than we can see where this argument is going: the argument is assuming that these political theorists in the university setting aren't willing, aren't able, aren't going to, etc. make this language "clear and accessible" on their own! If we assume the negation of that, why would the role be "special?" After all, the political theorists were going to do it themselves!

If we look at (A)→(D), we get some matching language but not any that gets to the real meat of the argument. The argument is focused on the language and the process of these political theories and really nothing else.

(E) is correct because, if negated, it shows why these roles aren't "special." That is, even if the language is convoluted and inaccessible, so what? Perhaps one draft will be hard to follow but these theorists are going to concurrently come out with the latest "Political Theory for Dummies" book.

I liked (C) as well as (E) because if the people who are to perform the special role of translation—those capable of thinking and writing in plain, accessible language—are brought into the initial theory-formulation process, then they no longer need to perform that translation further downstream. Why should they be left out of the initial formulation of theory?

It seemed to me that the argument required that assumption, and it took me a little while to figure out why it doesn't. In fact, the argument could and would require the assumption of (C), but only after it made the assumption contained in (E)—that persons within academe are incapable or unwilling to write clearly. If they're not capable or willing, then the argument absolutely does assume that outsiders capable of formulating theory in accessible language are better left out of the formulation process. But you have to go back a step in an assumption chain to get to the more fundamental assumption of (E), without which (C) cannot be considered to be necessary.

[MiltonW701]

No matter how well you know languages, sometimes it is impossible to do without a translator. This is especially true when it comes to the Arabic language. The complexity and uniqueness of Arabic grammar and cultural nuances require specialized knowledge. Therefore, even if you are a polyglot, it is important to turn to professional translators to achieve accuracy and quality in translations from Arabic. This will help you avoid mistakes and ensure a clear and concise rapport.