LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- rdown2b
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 29
- Joined: July 05th, 2011
Q18 - Studies have shown that
Can someone help me with breaking down the stimulus and the answer choices?
-
- timmydoeslsat
-
Thanks Received: 887
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1136
- Joined: June 20th, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
- Most Thanked
- First Responder
Re: Q18 - Studies have shown that
This is a parallel the flawed reasoning question.
We want to identify the flaw in the stimulus and match it to one of the five answer choices.
The stimulus:
The core of the argument can be seen as this:
Carbon dioxide in atmosphere increases ---> Photosynthesis intensifies
+
Burning of fossil fuels and industrial activities increase carbon dioxide levels
--------> Therefore...
Those activities are purely beneficial to agriculture and those that depend on it.
What could have been a valid conclusion for this argument with those two given premises?
That photosynthesis intensifies when fossil fuels are burned.
However, this argument's conclusion goes above and beyond that kind of language.
Think about other factors associated with the burning of fossil fuels and other industrial activities. What about the BP oil spill in the gulf coast last summer? Those activities intensify photosynthesis in plants, which can be seen as beneficial, but there are other things that can be seen as not beneficial.
Answer choices:
A) This brings in a concept of totally replacing one thing with another, which differs from the stimulus. It is bringing in a duality of two options and one option doing something more than another, so we need to replace that thing with the other.
B) Looks really good. Exercise has been shown to prevent diseases, injuries, ills. Therefore, exercise does no harm but a lot of good.
What about injuries associated exercise? Just like the stimulus, of course good can come from the activities respectively, however that does not mean that NO BAD can come from them either.
C) Totally wrong. Introduces a principle that has no justification! It is flawed, but not in a similar way. Going through and seeing how these other answer choices are flawed can benefit you in developing a sense for how arguments are flawed.
D) Same issue as C! Introducing a principle of what one should or ought to do. Just because you get more vitamins and minerals from fresh fruit does not give you justification for abandoning consumption of processed fruits.
E) This introduces a "Best" concept. This is a different flaw. We do not know what qualifies as best.
We want to identify the flaw in the stimulus and match it to one of the five answer choices.
The stimulus:
The core of the argument can be seen as this:
Carbon dioxide in atmosphere increases ---> Photosynthesis intensifies
+
Burning of fossil fuels and industrial activities increase carbon dioxide levels
--------> Therefore...
Those activities are purely beneficial to agriculture and those that depend on it.
What could have been a valid conclusion for this argument with those two given premises?
That photosynthesis intensifies when fossil fuels are burned.
However, this argument's conclusion goes above and beyond that kind of language.
Think about other factors associated with the burning of fossil fuels and other industrial activities. What about the BP oil spill in the gulf coast last summer? Those activities intensify photosynthesis in plants, which can be seen as beneficial, but there are other things that can be seen as not beneficial.
Answer choices:
A) This brings in a concept of totally replacing one thing with another, which differs from the stimulus. It is bringing in a duality of two options and one option doing something more than another, so we need to replace that thing with the other.
B) Looks really good. Exercise has been shown to prevent diseases, injuries, ills. Therefore, exercise does no harm but a lot of good.
What about injuries associated exercise? Just like the stimulus, of course good can come from the activities respectively, however that does not mean that NO BAD can come from them either.
C) Totally wrong. Introduces a principle that has no justification! It is flawed, but not in a similar way. Going through and seeing how these other answer choices are flawed can benefit you in developing a sense for how arguments are flawed.
D) Same issue as C! Introducing a principle of what one should or ought to do. Just because you get more vitamins and minerals from fresh fruit does not give you justification for abandoning consumption of processed fruits.
E) This introduces a "Best" concept. This is a different flaw. We do not know what qualifies as best.
2 posts Page 1 of 1