Q16 - Sociologist: Some economists hold

[qtcherrysyrup]

Hi!

I thought very hard between choices B and E.... ended up choosing B and of course got it wrong!

Will you please explain each answer choice so I can see why E is a better choice than B?

Thanks a lot!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question!

The difference between (B) and (E), as is often the case on the LSAT, comes down to the difference between what the author says and what we think he's saying. The conclusion is expressed in the last sentence: "supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation."

Answer (E) simply rephrases that conclusion. "Opposition to unregulated markets" is the same thing as support for marketplace regulation.

Answer (B), meanwhile, says something subtly different. The economist concludes that regulation is consistent with democracy. But does that necessarily imply that deregulation is inconsistent with democracy? No! Maybe they're both consistent with democracy! It might seem like the economist thinks unregulated markets and democratic sovereignty are incompatible, but he never explicitly says so. Remember, this is LSAT world!

As for the other answers:

(A) is never really said. At best, it's close to the premise. Certainly not the conclusion.

(C) is the exact opposite of what the economist concludes. His whole point is that political democracy doesn't have to be accompanied by market deregulation.

(D), again, comes close to restating part of the premise. But it sure ain't the conclusion!

Let me know if you have any more questions about this one!

[eunjung.shin]

Is it possible make "should accompany" into conditional form?

Unregulated markets should accompany democratic sovereignty

Um-> ds?

Thanks for your help!

[austindyoung]

Is it possible make "should accompany" into conditional form?

Unregulated markets should accompany democratic sovereignty

Um-> ds?

Thanks for your help!

I don't think that is what the stimulus, in that sentence is saying here. Translating that into a conditional statement (the if...then statement) would read, "If there are unregulated markets, then there should be democratic sovereignty."

Unregulated markets, in this case, do not present any condition that is sufficient for another condition occurring.

If anything, the conditional would be reversed. However- if we look at the sentence holistically its saying- "Some econs. believe: because unreg. mrkts. allow ppl. to vote w/money ---> unreg. mrkts. should accompany democratic svrgnty."

[contropositive]

I thought the second sentence is the conclusion and last sentence in. conclusion.
I even applied the THEREFORE test

1)
This view ignores the crucial distinction between the private consumer and the public citizen

THEREFORE

Supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulations.


2)
Supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulations.


Therefore

This view ignores the crucial distinction between the private consumer and the public citizen


2 makes more sense right?

Also, the second sentence tells us "this view ignores the crucial DISTINCTION BETWEEN the private consumer...

so if there is a difference and the second therefore scenario makes sense then B makes sense right

[esthertan0310]

Could anyone help paraphrasing the stimulus into simpler sentences?

[Ellesat]

Thanks for the question!

The difference between (B) and (E), as is often the case on the LSAT, comes down to the difference between what the author says and what we think he's saying. The conclusion is expressed in the last sentence: "supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation."

Answer (E) simply rephrases that conclusion. "Opposition to unregulated markets" is the same thing as support for marketplace regulation.

Answer (B), meanwhile, says something subtly different. The economist concludes that regulation is consistent with democracy. But does that necessarily imply that deregulation is inconsistent with democracy? No! Maybe they're both consistent with democracy! It might seem like the economist thinks unregulated markets and democratic sovereignty are incompatible, but he never explicitly says so. Remember, this is LSAT world!

As for the other answers:

(A) is never really said. At best, it's close to the premise. Certainly not the conclusion.

(C) is the exact opposite of what the economist concludes. His whole point is that political democracy doesn't have to be accompanied by market deregulation.

(D), again, comes close to restating part of the premise. But it sure ain't the conclusion!

Let me know if you have any more questions about this one!

Thank you. That made sense. But what about from a formal logic standpoint? Would you please compare B and E using formal logic to obtain the right answer? It seemed like the conclusion was saying D->R. Does B say the contrapositive, and if so wouldn't it be right? Also it seemed like E was saying R->D, illegal reversal.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thank you. That made sense. But what about from a formal logic standpoint? Would you please compare B and E using formal logic to obtain the right answer? It seemed like the conclusion was saying D->R. Does B say the contrapositive, and if so wouldn't it be right? Also it seemed like E was saying R->D, illegal reversal.

Hey Ellesat, thanks for posting!

I'm afraid you have fallen for the trap of over-conditionalizing (totally a word, I swear)! The conclusion is that "supports of pol. dem. CAN also support regulation", it does not say they must! A conditional statement is, by definition, a guarantee. The notation "D-->R" would suggest that if you support democracy, you will ALWAYS support marketplace regulation, and that's a significant misrepresentation of the conclusion. In (E), the word 'consistent' is used - this is also not a conditional word - for one thing to be consistent with another simply means that it's possible for them to co-exist. (Inconsistency, though, IS a conditional word! If two things are inconsistent with one another then they canNOT co-exist. Thus, having one would guarantee that you did not have the other!)

Essentially, the author is saying in the conclusion that it's possible to 1) support democracy and 2) support market regulation at the same time. Since we're just talking about the possibility of doing two things together, it doesn't really matter what order we talk about them. (If I say that Tuesdays can be gym days, then it is also true that going to the gym is consistent with it being Tuesday.) Thus, the 'reversal' that you notice in (E) is completely fine!

(B), on the other hand, uses the word "incompatible". Like "inconsistent", this word does imply a conditional relationship: ~R-->~D. But since our original conclusion was not a conditional statement, I can't "contrapose" it!

Watch out for the temptation to turn things into conditionals that do not actually give a guarantee!

Let me know if this helps clear things up!

Could anyone help paraphrasing the stimulus into simpler sentences?

Hey esthertan0310, thanks for posting!

Here's a caveman distillation:

Some idiots think something. But those idiots are ignoring the difference between AAAA and BBBB. When AAAA, blah happens. When BBBB, bleh happens. HENCE, supporters of one thing (democracy) can support another thing (market regulation).

All I really care about is understanding the sentence that starts with 'hence'!

Does that help?

I thought the second sentence is the conclusion and last sentence in. conclusion.
I even applied the THEREFORE test
<snip>
Also, the second sentence tells us "this view ignores the crucial DISTINCTION BETWEEN the private consumer...

so if there is a difference and the second therefore scenario makes sense then B makes sense right

Thanks for posting, royaimani20!

The THEREFORE test is an awesome tool for when we don't have good signals words - but here, we have a very clear signal word: hence!

There are many pairs of ideas that could be expressed either 'direction' in an argument. Imagine if you were trying to figure out which was the premise and which was the conclusion between 1) Jane studied hard all semester, and 2) Jane got an A on her exam. It could go either way!!

But imagine if the argument was worded like this:

Jane got an A on her exam. Hence, she studied hard all semester.

And what about this:

Jane studied hard all semester. Hence, she got an A on her exam.

The signal word 'hence' dictates which item is the conclusion!

Additionally, even if the second sentence were the conclusion, just because there is a difference between the private consumer and the public citizen, that does not necessarily mean unregulated markets are incompatible with democratic sovereignty! (B) doesn't accurately reflect the second sentence at all!

Does this help clear things up a bit?