LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- like333
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 8
- Joined: April 27th, 2012
Q21 - It is virtually certain that
I picked B instead of A. They both seem like the same thing. What is the difference?
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q21 - It is virtually certain that
It seems like you understood the general argumentative structure of the original stimulus:
Either X or Y is almost certainly gonna happen.
X isn't going to happen.
Thus, Y is almost certainly gonna happen.
The most important way to tell the difference between (A) and (B) is seeing which one better matches the conclusion.
(A) says the argument is "concluding that it is extremely likely that an event will occur".
Is that a decent match for "it is almost inevitable that Phoenix Contracting will be awarded the contract"?
Sure.
"Extremely likely" = "almost inevitable"
"an event will occur" = "PC being awarded the contract"
(B) says the argument is inferring that "the other event will not occur".
(Inferring and concluding mean the same thing)
Is that a decent match for "it is almost inevitable that PC will be awarded the contract"?
No. Our conclusion is that an event WILL occur. (B) says the conclusion was that an event WON'T occur.
When you see answer choice language that looks like:
concludes X on the basis of Y
concludes, on the basis of Y, that X
infers X from the claim that Y
infers, from the claim that Y, that X
This ALWAYS means you should try to match the answer up with the Prem (Y) and Conc (X).
The thing being concluded or inferred is the conclusion. The claim/basis on which it's being concluded is the premise.
(There are a ton of answer choices in Flaw questions that are structured this way ... if they match the Prem/Conc, they're right ... if they don't match, they're wrong ... simple as that)
===other answers===
(C) "refuting a claim" is a poor match for the conclusion, which asserts a claim that a particular event is almost inevitable.
(D) matches the conclusion, but the premise was not "an established pattern of past events"; the premise was just a claim that either X or Y will almost inevitably occur.
(E) matches the conclusion, but the premise was not a general statistical statement. This answer is describing going from a general statistic (f.e., about cars in general) to a specific prediction (f.e., about Bob's car). But this argument's premise was about the particular statistical likelihood of PC vs. CC, so we can't say the premise was more general than the conclusion.
Either X or Y is almost certainly gonna happen.
X isn't going to happen.
Thus, Y is almost certainly gonna happen.
The most important way to tell the difference between (A) and (B) is seeing which one better matches the conclusion.
(A) says the argument is "concluding that it is extremely likely that an event will occur".
Is that a decent match for "it is almost inevitable that Phoenix Contracting will be awarded the contract"?
Sure.
"Extremely likely" = "almost inevitable"
"an event will occur" = "PC being awarded the contract"
(B) says the argument is inferring that "the other event will not occur".
(Inferring and concluding mean the same thing)
Is that a decent match for "it is almost inevitable that PC will be awarded the contract"?
No. Our conclusion is that an event WILL occur. (B) says the conclusion was that an event WON'T occur.
When you see answer choice language that looks like:
concludes X on the basis of Y
concludes, on the basis of Y, that X
infers X from the claim that Y
infers, from the claim that Y, that X
This ALWAYS means you should try to match the answer up with the Prem (Y) and Conc (X).
The thing being concluded or inferred is the conclusion. The claim/basis on which it's being concluded is the premise.
(There are a ton of answer choices in Flaw questions that are structured this way ... if they match the Prem/Conc, they're right ... if they don't match, they're wrong ... simple as that)
===other answers===
(C) "refuting a claim" is a poor match for the conclusion, which asserts a claim that a particular event is almost inevitable.
(D) matches the conclusion, but the premise was not "an established pattern of past events"; the premise was just a claim that either X or Y will almost inevitably occur.
(E) matches the conclusion, but the premise was not a general statistical statement. This answer is describing going from a general statistic (f.e., about cars in general) to a specific prediction (f.e., about Bob's car). But this argument's premise was about the particular statistical likelihood of PC vs. CC, so we can't say the premise was more general than the conclusion.
2 posts Page 1 of 1