Q19 - Most people feel that they

[aidanmenzul]

Is the key this question that the sentence right before the last one is pretty much just filler designed to get the test taker to associate density with information being delivered too quickly?

[cyruswhittaker]

The argument attributes the confusion to two causes:

1) Info delivered too quickly.
OR
2) Info is poorly organized.

The argument attempts to show that 1) is not the cause; therefore, 2) must be.

In showing that 1) is not the cause, the author discusses information density, illustrating that it is lower than that which people can cope with.

A is a necessary assumption of the argument, its validity required for the conclusion to hold, because if the number of news stories WERE the source of that confusion, then the author could not rule out 1) as the cause. Hence the conclusion that 2) is the cause would not follow.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Great explanation! Please let us know if you need further discussion.

[njw5d]

I'd like some further clarification on this question, please.

When the stimulus says "This could be the effect of" are we able to assume that the two reasons listed are the only two reasons why people are being confused? If this is correct, then answer A would seem to contradict the stimulus because it is outside the scope of possible causes of the effect.

If this is not the case, then A clearly makes sense since negating it provides an alternate explanation for the confusion being felt.

If I am on the wrong track then I would appreciate if someone could explain a bit further.

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think your reasoning is strong -- the author is assuming two causes when more could be possible, and (A) addresses another cause.

[Shiggins]

When doing this problem I assumed that the maximum density we have compensates or corrects any confusion that could result from information being delivered too quickly.

The structure of the argument is that either two sufficient terms can lead to confusion and the author concludes that one ( the poorly organization) is the culprit.

I had trouble eliminating choice B. I eliminated it bc i see it as a strengthener. It just gives a reason for why poorly organization leads to confusion, it does not shield it from other sufficient events that can lead to confusion like choice A.

If someone could correct or supplement, much appreciated.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I had trouble eliminating choice B. I eliminated it bc i see it as a strengthener. It just gives a reason for why poorly organization leads to confusion, it does not shield it from other sufficient events that can lead to confusion like choice A.

You're reasoning is good, nice work! I'd add something else to your elimination of answer choice (B) though. You're right that (B) simply boosts a premise that poor organization can affect people's ability to understand the content of broadcast news. For that reason, this answer choice is incorrect. But another issue with it is it's strength. It's not required that poor organization makes it impossible to understand the information, but rather that it can affect one's ability to understand the information. So the strength of answer choice (B) is also an issue.

Hope that helps!

[zainrizvi]

Are false dichotomies generally exceptions to the rule of when you can attack the premise? Well, it's not really attacking the premise.. but you get what I mean - they aren't as clear cut. I guess in this situation it does severe the link between the premise and conclusion in this question.

Can you always attack a false dichotomy? Unless the argument specifically said, there are ONLY two possible causes, then you have to assume the truth of the conclusion right?

Or how about a situation in which the argument didn't really rely on the false dichotomy - is it still a flaw? For example,

There could be reason A or reason B for doing Y. But this situation is more suited for the first reason. Therefore, the first reason should be chosen.

Is this argument flawed? It does contain a false dichotomy but it doesn't necessarily use its logic to get to the conclusion; it provides independent support and it doesn't eliminate the alternative to get to the solution.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Are false dichotomies generally exceptions to the rule of when you can attack the premise?

I guess I don't really see false dichotomies as an issue with the evidence, but rather with the conclusion. It's the conclusion that assumes that only those two possible reasons exist, the evidence does not imply this.

So no need to attack a premise here!

Or how about a situation in which the argument didn't really rely on the false dichotomy - is it still a flaw? For example,

There could be reason A or reason B for doing Y. But this situation is more suited for the first reason. Therefore, the first reason should be chosen.

Is this argument flawed?

This argument contains several flaws. First, it assumes that if one reason for doing Y is better suited than another reason for doing Y in a situation, then in that situation the former reason should be chosen. It's not unreasonable to make that assumption, but there is the potential that there are other over-riding considerations. Secondly this argument still fails to consider other alternative reasons that might be even better suited.

So, yes, this argument is still committing the error of failing to consider possible alternatives, commonly know as a false dichotomy.

Nice work!

[weiyichen1986]

Are false dichotomies generally exceptions to the rule of when you can attack the premise?

I guess I don't really see false dichotomies as an issue with the evidence, but rather with the conclusion. It's the conclusion that assumes that only those two possible reasons exist, the evidence does not imply this.

So no need to attack a premise here!

Or how about a situation in which the argument didn't really rely on the false dichotomy - is it still a flaw? For example,

There could be reason A or reason B for doing Y. But this situation is more suited for the first reason. Therefore, the first reason should be chosen.

Is this argument flawed?

This argument contains several flaws. First, it assumes that if one reason for doing Y is better suited than another reason for doing Y in a situation, then in that situation the former reason should be chosen. It's not unreasonable to make that assumption, but there is the potential that there are other over-riding considerations. Secondly this argument still fails to consider other alternative reasons that might be even better suited.

So, yes, this argument is still committing the error of failing to consider possible alternatives, commonly know as a false dichotomy.

Nice work!

Actually this question is not about alternative cause. the stem said " news story" and then say "the density of A typical news story", it is a scope change, in order to improve the conclusion, reading too quickly can not be ruled out unless there is a number of news story to be read is not many.


Hope this helps.

[slimjimsquinn]

I saw the argument structure but couldn't line up news being "delivered too quickly" to the part about density. I can't see how it's a reasonable leap.

The rate at which news is delivered shouldn't have to do with density, right? What if this was a news program that had very little show time and a lot of commercial time? So if news is delivered quickly and sparsely, that doesn't mean it has little density. Right?

I'm still very confused on this portion. Any help would be appreciated! Thank you!

[gplaya123]

could someone go deeper with this question?

I was familiar with the structure of the argument but...

I cannot understand how the arguments equates

"delivered too quickly" with "low in density."

To me, they are separate things even though the argument itself treats as if they are the same things...

Does this argument really about

A or B
A is out
Thus B.

Flaw: argument never said about A or B are the only causes. Thus alternative cause cannot be ruled out

or

is there some other thing I need to understand about this argument?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I cannot understand how the arguments equates

"delivered too quickly" with "low in density."

The argument does not equate these two issues, but contrasts them. The more quickly the information is delivered, the higher the density of information. It's a matter of the amount of content over a period of time. The quicker the information is presented, the more information will presented over a given period of time, and thus the higher the density of that information will be.

The argument really is as simply as suggesting that there are two possible reasons for why people feel confused by the news. The argument then goes on to rule one of them out, and thereby concludes that it must be the other of the two possible reasons.

Answer choice (A) points out the assumption that it was something else was not responsible for why people feel confused when they watch the news.

Incorrect Answers
(B) supports the argument, but need not be assumed. It supports the link between the evidence and the conclusion more strongly than is needed.
(C) offers a potential remedy for the confusion, but does not need to be assumed in order for the explanation offered to stand.
(D) boosts the premise that the density of the information being presented is not higher than what people can handle, and so fails to address the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
(D) undermines the argument by suggesting that at least for some people it is neither the density nor the organization that leads to the confusion.

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great discussion. Very helpful information.

Just had a question about LSAT semantics. The second sentence here is: "This could be the effect of the information's being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized." By using "could," can we still assume that the author is saying that those are the *only* two effects possible? If that was the case, I was under the impression that the author would have to say, "This is the effect of the information's being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized." "Could" sounds to me as if the author is connoting possibility, and subsequently leaves open the door that there might be other options. It sounded to me like the main flaw in this argument was going from "could" (i.e. possible) to "is (i.e. definitive).

Also, if he says "this could be X or Y," does this mean that it has to be X OR Y, or can it also mean that it could be "X AND Y," or "NEITHER X NOR Y."

That was a mouthful so hopefully that made sense. Thanks in advance for your help

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks for the great discussion. Very helpful information.

Just had a question about LSAT semantics. The second sentence here is: "This could be the effect of the information's being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized." By using "could," can we still assume that the author is saying that those are the *only* two effects possible? If that was the case, I was under the impression that the author would have to say, "This is the effect of the information's being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized." "Could" sounds to me as if the author is connoting possibility, and subsequently leaves open the door that there might be other options. It sounded to me like the main flaw in this argument was going from "could" (i.e. possible) to "is (i.e. definitive).

Also, if he says "this could be X or Y," does this mean that it has to be X OR Y, or can it also mean that it could be "X AND Y," or "NEITHER X NOR Y."

That was a mouthful so hopefully that made sense. Thanks in advance for your help

I'll take a shot at this. "Could," by definition, connotes possibility. Thus, if I said "in order to get an A, I could work harder or work longer," I am really just saying (H or L → A). In this example, I could do both - I could definitely worker harder and longer.

However, what I am NOT saying is that working "harder" or "longer" is the only way I can get an A; I am NOT saying (A → H or L). Why not? Because there can be other ways I am able to get an A, as this question shows. Maybe I could neither work harder or longer yet still get an A by stumbling upon groundbreaking research that proves that time travel can actually happen (this class in question is Science for English Majors of course).

Do you see what I mean? This question is saying "It could be X or Y." Then it says "It is not X, therefore Y." Ummm...what about the other possibilities?! (A) addresses that. Another necessary assumption could be "The only way that people are confused by news stories is either by information being (1) delivered to quickly or (2) being poorly organized." In that case, (A) would be both sufficient and necessary.

[sh854]

I am having trouble understanding why B is wrong. I applied the negation test, "poor organization of information in a news story does not make it impossible to understand the information." Doesn't think destroy the argument that information in a typical broadcast news is poorly organized?

[maryadkins]

If poor organization DOESN'T make it impossible to understand, that means some people can still understand it. So does that destroy the argument? If some people can still understand it?

No, because we're only talking about MOST people (see the first sentence).

Beware of extreme language in answer choices to necessary assumption questions for this reason!

[jiangziou]

I think (A) does not imply another possible reason. It is furnishing the author's first reason--"the information's being delivered too quickly"

weiyichen1986 has a very good point.

"Analysis of the info content of a typical broadcast news story shows...." The argument is talking about the density of a single news story. So one news story would be easy. The info is not being delivered too fast. But what if there are 20 stories being displayed one after another within just a few mins, wouldn't that too quickly and intense?

(A) rules out this possibility, and thus officially rules out the first reason given by the author.

The argument really is as simply as suggesting that there are two possible reasons for why people feel confused by the news. The argument then goes on to rule one of them out, and thereby concludes that it must be the other of the two possible reasons.

Answer choice (A) points out the assumption that it was something else was not responsible for why people feel confused when they watch the news.
.