Q18 - No one with a serious

[r1r200]

can someone please explain this? thank you.

[aileenann]

It looks as though this argument is working by analogy, so we want to find something that explains the reason we don't want just anyone working as a public servant in the same way that if we had a serious illness we wouldn't want just anyone prescribing our medication.

(D), the correct answer, goes to the heart of this logic by structuring the argument in a way that the public servant shouldn't trust just anyone's opinion in guarding the best interest of the public just as a sick person shouldn't trust just anyone in choosing prescription medication.

Do you have questions about the wrong answers? I'd be curious what part of this question you found most difficult - that can help you pinpoint ways to identify and work on such questions so you can improve in the future

[ambivalent07]

could you explain why (b) would be wrong. I presume its because it focuses on what the "average" public servant knows?

[aileenann]

There's a bunch of reasons why (B) is wrong. Firstly, you're right, we don't care about "the average public servant." Similarly, we have no interest in comparing the average public servant to the average person. Rather, we're looking to decide how the public servant should choose expertise analogous to those related to a sick person.

[ronburgandy2468]

(d) states that the public servant should base decisions on "something other than the average person's recommendations." But what if the average person's recommendations is actually the right one? a "good" servant should always neglect it, in the interest of the public?

As for the analogy I feel that there is a fine line between "relying on the average person's opinion" and flat out doing something besides it. Can't the public servant not rely on the opinion but decide to do it after relying on his own, which happens to be the same opinion?

[kaseyb002]

I also noticed a lot of the wrong answers had a lot to do with the public servant themselves having knowledge, when the stim has nothing do with a person's knowledge; it's all about a person being responsible in who they take recommendations from.

[joseph.m.kirby]

This stimulus has an analogy; each part of the analogy relates to two entities.

Part 1
Entity (1) sick person
Entity (2) person prescribing treatment

Person prescribes treatment to/for a sick person
(person prescribing should be ~average)
(Person prescribing has the interest of the sick person at heart)

Part 2
Entity (1) public
Entity (2) public servant
Public servant ____________ to/for the public
(public servant should be ~average)
(public servant has the interest of the public at heart)

I think the best contenders are (D) and (E)

(E) is close; however, (E) doesn't fill the gap (as noted above). Public servants have to do something while ~average.
(D) Correct. Public servants base decisions on ~average person's recommendations -- kaching , kaching!

[hippo3717]

Here is my 2 cent:

as the posts above said, this is all about analogy.
Since as an average person shouldn't prescribe anything to sick people (implying that that person doesn't know what's best for that sick person), in order to prevent the good public servant from becoming that average person (because servant has the interest of the public at heart), public servant should....

and we gotta fill in the blank.

A) public opinions? So out of scope
B) average public servant? Nope. We don't care about average public servant but in general.
C) Who is they? LSAT is very literal test. If they didn't specify who they are, then we don't know who "they" referring to.
D) Correct answer: public servant should know more than average people to not become the average person in the first sentence.
E) I eliminated E because it's converse.
It says: More knowledge -> Good servant. Well, not really. The argument is trying to get at Good servant -> more knowledge. More knowledge is sort of necessary factor not a sufficient factor.
If an average Joe has more knowledge yet doesn't have the interest of public at heart (or even has hatred toward society), does that make him a good servant? Nope.

[shirando21]

Yeah, E is really tempting to me and I think it is wrong because it is reversed.

E says, more knowledgeable --> good public servant

we want, good public servant-->more knowledgeable than average person

So, if it is saying instead, one is a good public servant only if one is more knowledgeable about the public good than is the average person, it would be correct.

Please let me know if what I wrote here is correct

[dukeag]

Can anyone please tell me a strategy for how to attack these "Complete the argument" questions? They are kind of hard because I don't really know how to approach them....

[ttunden]

Can anyone please tell me a strategy for how to attack these "Complete the argument" questions? They are kind of hard because I don't really know how to approach them....

basically just read and intuitively understand the statements. When you hit the answer choices, the correct answer should be derived from the statements ie have proof/support. You can't just choose something like A or C which absolutely have no support and ultimately do not make any sense if it were to be put where the _________ is.


So thats my strategy for these types of questions. Working wrong to right certainly helps as it reduces uncertainty.

E is too extreme for this. You gotta pick an answer choice that can be derived from the statements. WHy would the author bring up the serious medical problem ie 1st sentence as evidence for answer choice E? wouldn't make sense. why is it so important that they are a good public servant? what does that have to do with the statements? why does one have to be more knowledgeable about the public good than the average person?? the statements aren't heading in this direction nor support this direction.

another keyword is to look at what comes before the ____ when choosing an answer. Would answer choice E work? no because it says similarly. That keyword right there eliminates a lot of the answer choices. Correct AC has to be similar to the 1st sentence.

Hope this helps. PM if you need more help.

[lissethbayona]

I think D is correct because if the public servant has the best interest of the public at heart, then they would make decisions for the public in the same manner that the public would make for themselves; IE, not relying on the average person's recommendations. With that, we tie together the two sentences in the stimulus and show how they are in fact similar.

Can someone please provide feedback and let me know if this thinking is correct?

[rinagoldfield]

This question asks us to complete an analogy, so we want to find something parallel to the first sentence. The first sentence tells us that people would not ask on the average person to prescribe medical treatment. Therefore good public servants…

Hmm… what is similar to not asking the average person to prescribe medical treatment?... something about not asking the average person to do something expert.

(D) gets at this. It says that public servants will not ask the average person for policy recommendations. This is parallel.

(A) talks about what average people should worry about, not about what we should ask of them.
(B) discusses what average people know, not what we should ask of them.
(C) is way off base; it talks about being more informed, not whom to ask for recommendations.
(E) talks about how to define a good public servant. The stimulus didn’t talk about how to define a doctor; this is not parallel.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Rina

[sean.d.mac]

Well, I chose B while I did the actual PT. My blind Review showed me that D worked much better though.

You have to complete the analogy basically; it doesn't matter if that analogy leads to questionable outcomes (as someone above pondered...ie: 'what if the average person's recommendation is worthwhile?' - that goes beyond our task).

All we have to do to get the correct answer is to fill the gap in the analogy.

Now I broke it down as simply as I could (maybe this would work for others as well?):

identify that 'prescribing treatment' must related to something - the answer choices need to be scanned here, and D is the only one that really presents something usable.

Then I worked backwards to test it:

Sick person > ~average person for 'treatment'

likewise:

public servant > ~average person for 'treatment' (insert 'recommendation' from D). Seems to fit like a glove to me...

The 'something other than' is fluffity-fluff. Does it matter what is it? No. Does it matter if that rules out VIABLE recommendations? No (again see top).

These plug and chug questions are difficult because they are interspersed amongst questions where we have trained ourselves to make inferences (ie: weaken, strengthen etc). And yet, we have to almost suspend that next step: ignore what [i]results[i] from the completion of the analogy, and focus on the completion itself.

[mswang7]

If serious medical problem -> ~ rely on avg person to prescribe

My prephase is something like a good public servant will know not to make decisions outside area of expertise but I was honestly drawing a blank on this one. The correct answer should have something about the interest of the public

A. This seems to be the opposite of what we want. Surveys would reflect the interest of the public
B. We aren't given information about what a good PS knows. Also society is a term shift
C. We don't know anything about what should PS base decisions on
D. This is pulling the parallel of the first sentence that the the average person does not know what is best for them
E. Same as B

[GolddiggerF208]

I didn't get any choice at first glance. But I know "similarly" is the key. The medical case simply means ppl should turn to experienced doctors for medical treatment. Similarly, what public servants can do? They are "doctors" in public service, so they can depend on themselves to serve the public better. I read the choices again and again and found only (D) ever shows the similarity.