Q20 - Saunders: Everyone at last

[jas770]

Could someone also explain why choice B is better than A. B seems exceptionally wordy, but I think that the way that the question is worded contributes to its being the accredited answer choice.

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This one is tricky, but is a great example problem for Principle Questions.

We're asked to find a principle that would allow us to conclude either that demolishing the building was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted.

An open-ended principle question!

We know that tearing down the houses reduces a threat to the neighborhood. We also know that a fund had been established to rehabilitate the building.

One group of residents concluded that it was right to tear down the buildings, the other claimed that we should have tried to rehabilitate the buildings first.

We're asked to find a principle that would justify either side...

(A) says that the city should have rehabilitated the building, unless the building posed a threat. Put into if... , then .... form would read

If the city should not have rehabilitated the building, then the building must have posed a threat.

Take the contrapositive of this statement

If the building didn't pose a threat, then the city should have rehabilitated the building.

The problem with this answer choice is that it says what we should do if the building did not pose threat, but we know that it does.

(B) says that we should have rehabilitated the building because it's the only option of the two that does not foreclose the other possibility. And thus the correct answer!
(C) says that we should demolish, unless we have a fund set up. Put into if ... , then ... form would read

If we should not demolish the building, then we should have a fund established.

Taking the contrapositive

If we do not have a fund established, then we should not demolish the building.

The problem with this answer choice is that we know that a fund has been established.

(D) does not actually advocate the undertaking of either proposal, so would not be principle one could use in support of either position.
(E) advocates against one of the two positions, but could not be used to support the other side.

Does this clear things up Jimmy? Let me know if you still need some more help with this!

#OfficialExplanation

[jiyoonsim]

I'm still confused on what this question is asking. So do we have to choose a principle that tips the scale to one particular side? Or making it either is alright?

Here's how I understood the question, so please let me know if I'm missing anything.

B) If B is true, the rehab should have been chosen. And B fits with the situation given by the stem.

C) isn't something covered by the stem.
- Rehab requires funding, and demolish doesn't require funding.
- We have to demolish buildings unless the funding is secured.
- But funding is secured! So the whole thing is in jeopardy.

[geverett]

I got this one wrong by choosing A. I see now the folly of my ways.

(A) This is a mistaken negation. It's trying to trick you into thinking it supports the demolition plan, but it doesn't.

Demo plan diagram would look like this:

Pose Threat --> ~Housing Plan

This answer choice presents this principle:

~Pose Threat ---> Housing Plan

The demolition argument only gives us a solution if the houses pose a threat. It does not give us a plan if the houses do not pose a threat. Feel free to ask if you have more questions on this.

(B) This is classic LSAT. They are employing convoluted language to try and throw you. What this argument is basically saying is that if you have two options and one of the options (demolishing the building) would prevent you from trying the other option (rehabilitating the buildings) then the option (rehabilitating) which would not preclude the other option (demolishing the buildings perhaps in the future) should be the option you go with. It's telling us that rehabilitating the buildings would be the correct way to go. Make sense? yes? no?

(C) This is interesting. However, we do not know if the funds have already been secured or they are in the process of being secured. We only know from the stimulus that a fund has been established for the rehab. This does not necessarily mean that funding has been secured. We also do not know if the demolition was financed by taxpayer money. To assume that it did or did not would be attaching to much to this stimulus.

(D) This tells us what we should not do, but not what we should do. This answer could not serve as justification for either choice and so is not the answer choice we are looking for.

(E) We are told that something is not sufficient reason for adopting a proposal, but once again we are not given reason for adopting one of the proposals. Get rid of it.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

nice explanation geverett! If I had a buck for every time a student has committed a "reversal" or a "negation" on the answer choice, I'd be retired.

Make sure you really slow down when you're identifying the trigger and the outcome in a conditional relationship. There is always a key word you can use to determine the relationship. You might even want to keep a notecard running of trigger words that you encounter, and whether they imply sufficiency, or necessity, or both.

[wj097]

This one is tricky, but is a great example problem for Principle Questions.

We're asked to find a principle that would allow us to conclude either that demolishing the building was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted.

An open-ended principle question!

We know that tearing down the houses reduces a threat to the neighborhood. We also know that a fund had been established to rehabilitate the building.

One group of residents concluded that it was right to tear down the buildings, the other claimed that we should have tried to rehabilitate the buildings first.

We're asked to find a principle that would justify either side...

(A) says that the city should have rehabilitated the building, unless the building posed a threat. Put into if... , then .... form would read

If the city should not have rehabilitated the building, then the building must have posed a threat.

Take the contrapositive of this statement

If the building didn't pose a threat, then the city should have rehabilitated the building.

The problem with this answer choice is that it says what we should do if the building did not pose threat, but we know that it does.

(B) says that we should have rehabilitated the building because it's the only option of the two that does not foreclose the other possibility. And thus the correct answer!
(C) says that we should demolish, unless we have a fund set up. Put into if ... , then ... form would read

If we should not demolish the building, then we should have a fund established.

Taking the contrapositive

If we do not have a fund established, then we should not demolish the building.

The problem with this answer choice is that we know that a fund has been established.

(D) does not actually advocate the undertaking of either proposal, so would not be principle one could use in support of either position.
(E) advocates against one of the two positions, but could not be used to support the other side.

Does this clear things up Jimmy? Let me know if you still need some more help with this!

The issue I had with B was the conditional phrase, "if the first (i.e., demolition) proves unsatisfactory..". We know that it was a huge success, so how can this conditional be triggered??

THx

[nbayar1212]

I have the same question ^^^

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ah! The issue is that the "first" actually refers to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation does not foreclose the possibility of demolition, but demolition would foreclose the possibility of rehabilitation.

Answer choice (B) justifies the opponents of demolition and that the neighborhood association should have rehabilitated the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Carlton street.

[magnusgan]

Ok, I am confused by the question. Is it asking us to select a principle that could allow either side (rehabilitation or demolition) to be right?

OR

Is it asking us to select an answer which would support one of the two options, with either option being fine?


Obviously because I'm asking, I thought the question was asking the former. So I picked (D) since it basically could go either way depending on what the results of all the other possible alternatives were.

[nbayar1212]

oohhhh...... I get it now. I think me and wj097 were both interpreting the "if the first proves unsatisfactory" as a condition that needs to be met within the stimulus for the answer choice to apply.

BUT, answer choice B is talking a hypothetical within the world of the answer choice i.e. its telling us that if we pick a choice that would preclude us from trying the other choice in the event of us regretting it , we should first try the choice that doesn't preclude the possibility of trying the other choice instead.

Thank you.

[BarbC178]

Hi. I'm reading this thread, and I'm still not quite sure what the question is asking. It looks like it wants a principle that could justify either side, but the discussion is explaining B as the correct answer because is justifies the rehab group.

I was thinking D, because it could be used to justify either side, dependent on whether possible alternatives have been investigated... which we do not know.

Could B be correct because, we do not know whether the first approach was deemed unsatisfactory or not?

Curious, because the discussion seems to be in favor of the principle justifying only one side of the argument, rather than both... and that doesn't really speak to the question as I understand it.

Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

Hi. I'm reading this thread, and I'm still not quite sure what the question is asking. It looks like it wants a principle that could justify either side, but the discussion is explaining B as the correct answer because is justifies the rehab group.

I was thinking D, because it could be used to justify either side, dependent on whether possible alternatives have been investigated... which we do not know.

Could B be correct because, we do not know whether the first approach was deemed unsatisfactory or not?

Curious, because the discussion seems to be in favor of the principle justifying only one side of the argument, rather than both... and that doesn't really speak to the question as I understand it.

Thanks!

Yeah, this is definitely a strangely worded question, and not one I would expect to see on a more recent LSAT (though you never know!). I think the question is asking for a principle that can support one side OR the other, rather than a principle that can be used to support both. The "or instead" is the key language in the question stem, as it tells you the right answer will support one side, but not both.

Hope this helps.

[BarbC178]

Ah... so we are not looking for an AC that can go either way. We are looking for principle that supports one of the positions... we just are not told which one.

Is this understanding correct?

What a nasty question!

[Misti Duvall]

Ah... so we are not looking for an AC that can go either way. We are looking for principle that supports one of the positions... we just are not told which one.

Is this understanding correct?

What a nasty question!

Yep! (On both counts.)