Q18 - Obviously, we cannot in any

[vswamy]

For question #18, it came down to answer choices A and D but I found A more convincing because the word only in answer choice D raised a red flag for me. How do we know only organisms that can experience pain can be mistreated. It seems that the stimulus just assumes organisms that experience pain can be mistreated. Could you explain why D is correct?

[cobyerez79]

U think there was a mistake with this one. I'm trying to understand why e is correct.
Why is it a flaw to say that there are only two options to solve a problem?

[james.h.meyers]

U think there was a mistake with this one. I'm trying to understand why e is correct.
Why is it a flaw to say that there are only two options to solve a problem?

Yeah the plant question is Q.18 for section 4 of this test....

Anyways.. I came here for some more enlightenment on the wrong answers, but I can tell you why (E) is right.

The president is freaking out because profits are at an all-time low. When I was reading the stim it (fortunately) kinda stood out to me that when he was giving his ideas he said "Consequently the only option..." and it made the answer choice easier. That combined with eliminating the other answers and the answer jumped out.

It reminds me of the flaw "takes for granted that one solution is the only solution," only in this case he is assuming that these two options are the only options. I don't think it's quite a false dichotomy but it seems that because it isn't purely logic where you might only have two options, (e.g. A or ~A, On or OFF, 0 or 1), his statement creates an unsupported assumption.

His premises that profits are low etc. support his idea that something needs to be done, but if you were to ask a friend how their business was doing and they said "awful, profits are low. I only have two options: A or B." Wouldn't you inquire as to why they only have two options? What about laying people off? What about merging? What about taking a loan against the company and betting it all on black? If after you inquired as to why they only had two options they said "I just told, you because profits are low," you'd think that only explains why you need to do something it doesn't explain (or support) why you only have two options.

And if the support is weak, it's a flaw.

That said, I was looking for more specific flaws like the fact that he says he wants to "prevent any further decrease in profits" and one of his solutions is to eliminate the least profitable ops. I mean even if they are profiting $1 you still wouldn't eliminate it if you wanted to prevent any decrease in profits.... this of course assuming that the lsat wouldn't consider negative profits as profits... but who knows (any MLSAT folks wanna weigh in?)

Anyway, that's what I got.

[WaltGrace1983]

Here is the breakdown of the right question, 25.2.18 "President of Central Supply Company: Profits are at an all-time low..."

Profits are at all-time lower, so important to prevent further decrease in profits
-->
The only options are (1) to reduce expansion or (2) eliminate less profitable operations

The problem with this argument is that it assumes only two options on basically no evidence at all. Maybe there is a secret option number 3; maybe borrowing money and starting a brand new sector of one's business would prevent a further decrease in profits.

(A) The author is not making any kind of value judgement about saving the company. He doesn't say if it is a good or bad thing. Also, (A) doesn't deal directly with the conclusion. Eliminate.

(B) Very close! However, this only deals with the premise. We want to know if there are alternatives to the two things mentioned in the conclusion. Eliminate.

(C) The argument is not really saying this. The author is merely saying that, in this situation, decreased demand caused profits to be an all-time low. Eliminate. This would be a correct answer to an argument like this: "our profits have decreased because our demand has decreased. Thus, if we increase the demand, our profits will definitely go up."

(D) It doesn't discount the possibility so it allows the possibility. Eliminate.

(E) Simple and correct. The argument assumes that these are the ONLY two ways (because it blatantly says it), or should I say that the argument assumes that there are not more different ways to increase profits.

[cyt5015]

Answer A is tricky, because the argument does assume that survive is a good thing; otherwise, why he or she spend so much effort to make this argument. The way to eliminate answer A is that it is not the right flaw. Think about it in this way: if we put the answer A as a premise in the argument, but the flaw "treat the two options as the only options" will still be here and the fallacious argument still holds. The correct flaw should directly attack the argument not just being descriptively accurate.
Answer B is descriptively inaccurate because the argument does take into account that there are alternatives by using "may" in "the company may have to declare bankruptcy."
Answer C is also descriptively inaccurate because of "ever". The argument only mentions "this fiscal year because of decreased demand" not "ever".
Answer D is descriptively inaccurate because it allows for that possibility by claiming "it is important" rather than "it is imperative" or "we must".

[a8l367]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes only two options on basically no evidence at all. Maybe there is a secret option number 3

But the arguments states (not assumes) that there are only two options.
For exapmle, if I say that I have only two hands: left and right. Where is a flaw in my reasoning?