Q18 - Editorial: It is clear that

[gyfirefire]

The conclusion is "the health education is usually propaganda rather than education".
The 1st evidence is "the former(propaganda) is nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans. If formulated in formal logic format,
propaganda ---> repetition ....

And the 2nd evidence is "the latter(education) neven involves such a method". In other words, "education--->no repetition..."
Answer is (D): (health education usually) attempts to influence behavior solely by repeating simplistic slogans". I think with this answer we can only deduce that "health education is usually not education" but cannot arrive at "health education is usually propaganda"-------can someone please help me with it???
Thanks a lot!

[sgorginian]

This is a Sufficient Assumption question.

Argument says...

PREMISE
- prop influences behavior through repitition of slogans, and prop is more successful than education in influencing behavior.
- health ed influences behavior by offering you information and letting you decide for yourself.

CONCLUSION
Health Ed then is Propoganda and not education.


Hmmm....so if your calling health education a propaganda...then what is propaganda?? What is the SUFFICIENT requirement that you need to be a propoganda?? See note above.... "propaganda influences behavior through repitition of slogans". Answer choice (D) says the same thing.

So....

The conclusion drawn by the editorial follows logically if it is assumed that what us called "health education" is usually attempts to influence behavior solely by repeating simplistic slogans.

Hope that helped.=)
SG

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I just want to add something here. There are only 4 or 5 questions in the history of the LSAT that I believe I can disprove the credited answer choice. This is one of them.

Evidence:

1. Propaganda and eduction are never the same thing.
2. Propaganda is nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans.
3. Education never involves the repetition of simplistic slogans.

Conclusion:

What is called "health education" is usually propaganda.

If you put this into formal notation...

Evidence

1. P --> ~E
2. P --> RSS
3. E --> ~RSS

Conclusion

HE most> P

(Formal Notation Key: P = propaganda, E = education, RSS = repetition of simplistic slogans, HE = health education)

If we add the correct answer choice (D) the conclusion would not follow for sure, and this is a sufficient assumption question.

HE most> RSS
P ---> RSS
===========
HE most> P

This argument relies on a reversal of the second premise. I'd love to see someone prove me wrong as the LSAC has an outstanding reputation as producing an amazing entrance exam.

[clairenlee]

A quick question about the answer choice D.

Does the modifier "solely" change anything? In fact, make the statement sufficient for the conclusion, unlike the answer choice A and B, which, I think, serve only as necessary assumptions?
Thanks!!

[Ajscripo]

To mshermn

I would have to disagree with the way you saw the question, since you give no credence to influence behavior.
IB + RSS then P, because if you consider the contra-positive

~P then ~RSS or ~ IB

Something that is not propaganda can be RSS and if it isn't meant to influence behavior

however if the statement is diagrammed as

P then RSS leaves the open the door that it wasn't meant to influence.

Consider the statement:

In 1942 Christoper Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Its an RSS clearly, but is it propaganda?

So, answer choice (D) gives you the Influence only thru RSS which proves that it is Propaganda

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey Ajscripo!

I'd love to work this through with you if you can help me see something that I haven't in the past. To tell you the truth though, I don't really follow your logic.

Do you see the argument as saying IB + RSS ---> P

If so, I don't see it. That would be committing the same reversal that I was discussing above. Did I misunderstand your explanation?

[Ajscripo]

Right then mate...if I understand it this is your argument:


Legend:
P= Propaganda
E=Education
IBTRS= Attempt to influence behavior though repetition of simplistic slogan
IBOAI= Attempts to influence behavior though offer all information in it complexity
HE= Health Education

Taking a sentence at a time
First sentence conclusion
HE--M-->P and ~E (your contention the HE--M-->~E is proven but HE--M-->P is not something that must be true)



Your view
Like a gas tank gauge

F | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | E

your saying ~ F does not mean empty because they are polar opposites and not logical opposites, and I would agree with that

P--->~E....
E--->~P....contra

next sentence

P-->IBTRS-->~E
from before the comma, and after the comma
E-->~IBTRS-->~P

next sentence...

E-->IBOFI(complex)
IBOFI-->~IBTRS (not simple vs simple)
IBTRS-->~IBOFI

Stem: Gives use HE--M--> Answer choice

D) Gives us IBTRS (HE--M-->IBTRS-->~E) (but no P is your objection)


I get it mate

What I was trying to say is that I saw the second sentence as

attempts to influence behavior through repetition of simplistic slogans
so its not simply repetition of the slogans that is necessary but that is attempts to influence behavior is also necessary

which is why B was wrong

allowing you to get to D by process of elimination since A,C,E are not even semi-close to a correct answer

...not sure which is right now mate just thoroughly confused and in need of a drink

I guess the real question becomes is the conclusion

HE--M-->~E .....rather than E
or
HE--M--> P, .....rather than E

and also doesn't this have to be true

HE --> ~E or E, but not both


Last sentence
E or P --M--> P
....thought rather than create a choice HE--> E or P--> P

..........I AM LOSING MY MIND HELP

[laurakornacka]

I too had difficulty with this question. No matter how I diagrammed, whether with simple conditional statements or in terms of detailed formal logic, I could never arrive at any conclusion other than
HE -M-> ~E with answer choice D.

HE=health education
E=education
P=propaganda

My LSAT teacher advised me to look at it differently since this does not lend itself well to traditional diagramming:

"Propaganda (P) and education (E) are never the same thing."

P-->~E
E-->~P

That statement is being qualified by the following: "The former (P) is nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans..." meaning that propaganda is in itself the same thing as "an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans (AIBviaSS)."

(P=AIBviaSS)

An AIBviaSS is not a quality necessary for P, but according to "nothing but," this alone is P. (I think this idea of alone is also hinted at in D using solely)

Furthermore, "...whereas the latter (E) never involves such a method" meaning that E-->~AIBviaSS, implying E-->~(AIBviass=P). Hence, the two are never the same.

Then education is further qualified, as attempting to influence behavior "by offering information in all its complexity (AIBviaOIC), leaving it up to the individual to decide how to act (LIDHA)"

E=AIBviaOIC-->LIDHA

From this perspective, choice D) HE-M->AIBviaSS (note the solely) can be seen as justifying the conclusion that HE-M->P

At first, I was quite averse to reading "nothing but" in this manner and not as a conditional statement akin to "none but," which is essentially the same thing as "only" in terms of indicating a necessary condition. But given how nothing else really explains how D's statement can justify the conclusion, I feel that this is an acceptable reading of the stimulus.

Does anyone have any major qualms with this reasoning?


I'm also finding that quite often when I see a certain degree of conditionality in a stimulus, particularly the latter questions, I get to stern diagramming all too quickly. In certain cases, like this question, I become so intent on fitting every statement into a perfect little logical component, that I lose a certain flexibility that might allow for a better perspective in terms of assessing the overall structure and interplay of the components.
Speaking only from my own experience, I think that it can be easy to fall into the trap of our own expectations and let good ol' LSAC get the best of us.

Best of luck to all out there.

[kdeclark]

There are only 4 or 5 questions in the history of the LSAT that I believe I can disprove the credited answer choice. This is one of them.

Evidence:

1. Propaganda and eduction are never the same thing.
2. Propaganda is nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans.
3. Education never involves the repetition of simplistic slogans.

Conclusion:

What is called "health education" is usually propaganda.

If you put this into formal notation...

Evidence

1. P --> ~E
2. P --> RSS
3. E --> ~RSS

Conclusion

HE most> P

(Formal Notation Key: P = propaganda, E = education, RSS = repetition of simplistic slogans, HE = health education)

If we add the correct answer choice (D) the conclusion would not follow for sure, and this is a sufficient assumption question.

HE most> RSS
P ---> RSS
===========
HE most> P

I should say first that I didn't read through all of the other responses, so someone may have already said this, but I think the logic works because 2 is actually supposed to be a biconditional.

The prompt says "The former [propaganda] is nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans." I read that as "Something is propaganda if and only if it attempts to influence behavior..." Though I can't make the case definitively, I feel like this reading is additionally supported when the author says that education "never involves such a method." Thus, the author seems to be saying "Look, in case you think that I'm saying "P --> RSS" and thus that this could be true while it is also true that education includes RSS, let me assure you that "E --> -RSS." This seems to suggest that the author at least THINKS that, since "propaganda and education are never the same thing," if something is RSS, then it must be P, or in other words " P <--> RSS."

I'm not saying that this is water tight--there are definitely problems with (particularly) the last part of the reasoning process--and I think that there are obviously cases where this biconditional doesn't hold. But this seems to me to at least suggest that what the author meant by "is nothing but" is "if and only if." If this IS what the author meant, then the argument seems to work if we assume D.

Do you reject that this is what he could have meant? Or do you reject that, if he meant this, this would lead to (D) as the right assumption?

[theonlyrij]

Can someone please explain this to me without using conditional logic and explain why the answers are wrong individually.

Thanks!

[legalrabbithole]

Categorizing the info helped me with this question.

What is education?
influence behavior by "offering info in all its complexity" and "leaving it up to the individ..."

What is propaganda?
influence behavior by "repetition of slogan"

Stem says that "health education" is just like propaganda. Thus, (D) is the correct answer because it gives us the definition of propaganda almost word for word.

(A) Do we know what doesn't leave it up to the individ to decide etc. No!! We only know that education leaves it up to the individual etc. We cannot assume that the logical opposite of education's definition applies to propaganda.

(B) Do we know what doesn't offer info in all its complexity? Nope. All we know is that education offers info in all its complexity. Again, we cannot assume that the logical opposite of education's definition applies to propaganda.

(C) directly contradicts the definition of propaganda. Propaganda DOES use repetition of slogans, hence health edu also uses repetition of slogans.

(E) distorts the last sentence, which is comparing success of education and propaganda. It doesn't say propaganda (health edu) IS very successful. It could be minimally successful.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work legalrabbithole!

I might suggest though that answer choices (A) and (B) might be seen to prove that health education is not education, but you're absolutely right. Proving that health education is not education, doesn't prove that it's propaganda.

For answer answer choice (C), I see why you say it contradicts the definition of propaganda, but maybe more accurately we could say that answer choice (C) would lead to the opposite conclusion of that reached in the stimulus - so yeah contradicts the stimulus.

(E) distorts the last sentence, which is comparing success of education and propaganda. It doesn't say propaganda (health edu) IS very successful. It could be minimally successful.

I like the way you phrase it as a distortion of the last sentence. It's distorting a relative claim for one that's absolute.

[timmydoeslsat]

I believe that this stimulus keys on the idea that a definition is a biconditional statement.

Propaganda is solely an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans.


So, we have:


Propaganda <----> solely an attempt to influence behavior through the repetition of simplistic slogans.


I have seen this idea used only a couple of times, I do not have the stimulus in front of me, but there was a question concerning limerick and poetry.

But the idea of saying a definition is biconditional. Now there are obviously times when saying a statement with the word "is" is not a definition biconditional situation.

1) A triangle is a shape that has only three sides.

Triangle <---> Shape that has only three sides.


2) Timmy is an American male.

This sentence is not giving a definition like the first one is. I would say 99 out of 100 statements using the word is do not cover definitions. It is good to be on the lookout for it though.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey Timmy, nice work! Please don't think I'm suggesting you don't know what you're doing, because you clearly do... But in this case I think I disagree.

Here's why... I looked up the question you referenced:

PT27, S1, Q20 - A poem is any work of art that exploits musical characteristics of language

So, we're defining what a poem is, so we would know that:

P ---> AEM

Notational Key: P - poem, AEM - artwork that exploits musical characteristics of language

But the definition uses the word "any." This means that if something is an artwork that exploits musical characteristics of language, then it's a poem:

AEM ---> P

And so the biconditional is absolutely correct here. But in

PT43, S2, Q18 - It is clear that what is

we don't have a term providing the same function as the word "any" from your example.

Does that make sense why you get a biconditional in one case, but not in the other. The LSAC is very careful with language. So to continue your example of the triangle, I think a better way to phrase the biconditional might be

"A triangle is any polygon with exactly 3 sides."

Triangle <--> Exactly 3 sides

What do you think?

[nicholasasquith]

Bumping this as I recently did PT57 and on S3-Q20 I ran into the "nothing but" statement again. This time it was in a Parallel flaw question, the correct AC didn't suggest bi-conditionality at all, "A is nothing but B" is treated as equivalent to "All As are Bs."

So in reasoning the correct AC, I'm very disinclined to believe there's a biconditional statement.

Any thoughts on my take for justifying (D)? Can we say that if A certainly isn't B, then its more likely to be C (Anything that's not B) than B?

[jason.rivenburg]

I looked up the discussion for this question because I got it wrong and after reading everyone's posts, I think this question is an example of the simplest explanation being the correct one. It's a tough question for anyone not up to par with formal logic and considering the varying approaches using formal logic, it's still confusing.

I finally realized I missed the obvious: "health education" is with quotation marks. Consider the use of quotations marks in literature when a writer is trying to imply something other than the actual meaning. Yes, it IS health education because it's taught as part of a school's curriculum, but we all know they're just trying to brainwash our kids. Whatever your take. But just consider referring to "health education" as health. That way you don't know if it's education, propaganda, or type of electric car. Then you have to rely on the rest of the argument to make sense of things, and I believe things actually make sense, especially the answer.

[stm_512]

I was confident that D) was the answer, although the instructor here and others included dispute it, so I must be missing something.

The conclusion here is that "health education" is usually propaganda instead of education. The stimulus also states that propaganda is attempting to influence behavior through repeating simple slogans, whereas education does not.

The sufficient assumption is "health education" attempts to influence behavior by repeating simple slogans, which is answer D).

What makes this question more complex than meets the eye?

[kumsayuya]

I too don't see what the big issue was here unless I'm also missing some big part of the argument. I did find the stem kind of annoying in the way it was phrased though.

I interpreted the stem as being "health education" referring to propaganda, which is what I think the editorial was talking about the whole time - education falsely being called so, when its really propaganda.

In the third sentence it states, "the former (propaganda) is nothing but an attempt to influence behaviour through the repetition of simplistic slogans". NOTHING BUT means that its ONLY that thing right? And for this to be 100 percent true, as it must be in an SA, (D) must be correct, no?

So, I saw it as, (D), saying if the conclusion can be drawn this health ed. is propaganda , it must be true that its attempts to influence behaviour solely by simplistic slogans, because this makes it 100 percent true due to the information based on the third sentence.

[eve.lederman]

I was able to eliminate B, C, and E. I picked A because it would essentially mean that health education would not be education, by denying that it could be the necessary part of what education is. The stim says that propaganda is more successful than education and that health education is usually propaganda. So I thought that by denying that HE could be education, that it's more likely that that propaganda is more successful or that HE is usually propaganda. Is this not what we're suppose to do in a sufficient assumption? Sorry if this sounds confusing! I tried to word it clearly.

[asafezrati]

I was able to eliminate B, C, and E. I picked A because it would essentially mean that health education would not be education, by denying that it could be the necessary part of what education is. The stim says that propaganda is more successful than education and that health education is usually propaganda. So I thought that by denying that HE could be education, that it's more likely that that propaganda is more successful or that HE is usually propaganda. Is this not what we're suppose to do in a sufficient assumption? Sorry if this sounds confusing! I tried to word it clearly.

First, you have to notice that the conclusion is the first sentence. It is marked as such by the words "It is clear that." So the last sentence (Sadly, P is more successful) isn't it, even though it is also heavily marked with stuff like "however" and the opinion word "sadly." Both hint to the sentence being a conclusion, but the argument doesn't include any material that supports which one is more successful.

Second, in sufficient assumption questions we are supposed to find an answer choice that leads from the premise to the conclusion directly and with a hight degree of certainty (100% mostly). Strengtheners and necessary assumptions are not the right answer, but there are some questions in which a necessary assumption is also a sufficient assumption.
So in this case, finding a necessary assumption for HE being propaganda (not being education) isn't the right thing to choose, because a thing being NOT-EDUCATION doesn't guarantee being PROPAGANDA.