Q21 - From the information presented

[ali.charania]

Why is C the right answer and why is D wrong?

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

(C) is right because one of the premises is that "none of [Joan's] friends likes the smell of Aurora as much as the smell of other perfumes." In other words, if you're Joan's friend, you don't like Aurora as much as other perfumes. But we also know that Prof. Jameson prefers Aurora to every other perfume. If that's true, she can't possibly be one of Joan's friends, because Joan's friends don't prefer Aurora.

(D) is incorrect because although none of Joan's friends likes Aurora as much as other perfumes, that doesn't mean they don't like it at all. They could like it, just less than every other.

Does that answer your question?

[agneskozera]

I was torn between answer "A" and "C". Can you explain why the answer cannot be "A"?

Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

I was torn between answer "A" and "C". Can you explain why the answer cannot be "A"?

Thanks!

It is important to know that the physiology of smell cannot account for personal preferences of smell. Being an expert in the physiology of smell does not provide sufficient support to conclude that there is a defect in a sense of smell just because you do not agree with the preferences of an expert.

It would be the same as making an appeal to an optometrist's opinion on a Van Gogh painting. He prefers it to all others in the museum. I liked all of the other ones in the museum more than that one. Is it true that there is a defect with my eye sight?

Of course not. Illegitimate appeal to authority.

Answer choice (A) could be true, could be false. We cannot properly infer it. To properly infer something on the LSAT is to absolutely have it proven in premises. It needs no further justification. It must be true.

Since we know that being an expert in the physiology of smell does not constitute a certain manner of preference, then sure, this choice could be true. However, it cannot be inferred from the stimulus.

[giladedelman]

Timmy, that's a good explanation of question 20 but probably more complicated than what we need to dismiss answer (A) on Q21. Notice that the premises, which are what we're being asked to focus on, only tell us three things:

1. Joan likes Aurora less than all other comparably priced perfumes.
2. Her friends all like other perfumes more than Aurora.
3. Professor Jameson is an expert on the physiology of smell and Aurora is her favorite perfume.

Nothing in there allows us to infer that Joan's friends aren't also experts. They could be experts and just disagree with Professor Jameson. In fact, even if we grant the argument's assumption that an expert on the sense of smell has a more valid opinion than a non-expert, the argument would still have to assume that Joan's friends are not also experts!

Make sense?

[timmydoeslsat]

Great post. I think I skimmed over 20 and had it in my head while talking about 21!

This argument also assumes that Joan is not one of the world's foremost experts on the physiology of smell.

[nthakka]

To eliminate (A): can't infer this because Joan's friends COULD in fact be experts on the physiology of smell, just not "one of the world's foremost experts". Therefore you cannot infer this.

(C) is correct because we know none of her friends like Aurora smell as much as other perfumes, whereas we know for Professor Jameson she prefers the smell to any other perfume. Therefore, Professor Jameson cannot be Joan's friend because if she was, she would NOT like the smell as much as others. But we know she does.