Q21 - Letter to the editor: when your

[mai.k.kaga]

Can someone explain what the question stem should lead us to predict the answer to be?

My reasoning is- if the stem says "the argument conflicts with which of the following"- we are then looking for something that would allow the newspaper to have been justified in its biased skepticism?

Thanks

[jenniferreisig]

The stem is a weaken principal question. You are correct. You need to find the answer that supports the position of the newspaper and weakens the argument in the letter. I initially chose (C), which I now see as incorrect because the argument says nothing about Mr. Hanlon being a trusted source. He is a trusted member of the community, that doesn't necessarily make him a trusted source. Here's how I see the answer choices....

(A) If a claim is extraordinary (which ours is), It should be not be presented uncritically unless it is backed by evidence of an extraordinarily high standard. Because Mr. Hanlon did not back his extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence then the newspaper does not have to present the claim uncritically. This principal conflicts with the argument in the letter. It fits. (B) Supports the argument in the letter. Move on. (C) Thought it worked but it doesn't for the reason stated above. (D) The argument isn't about the people making the claim, it's about the newspapers skeptical reaction to a claim. Move on. (E) Doesn't conflict with the letter. It's not about whether or not the newspaper should have published the report, it's about their tone being skeptical.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanation!

I'll add an 'official' explanation for posterity.

Question Type: Principle-Weaken

Task:
Which principle, if true, would most weaken the author (or in this case which principle would best defend the newspaper)?

Argument Core:

CONCLUSION
Your newspaper's bias (skepticism) against Mr. Hanlon's alien sighting was unjustified.

(why? because ...)
EVIDENCE
Hanlon has proven to be a trusted member of community.
Had he claimed to see a meteor (still rare), you wouldn't have been skeptical.

The key thing to focus on with Principle questions is exactly what claim is trying to be established in the conclusion.

In this case, the conclusion's truth value rests on whether the newspaper WAS / WAS NOT justified in sounding skeptical of Hanlon's alien sighting.

This means that THE ONLY useful principles for this argument are ones that take this structure:

IF such and such is true --> THEN you were / weren't justified in sounding skeptical of Hanlon's alien sighting.

Since we're trying to Weaken the author (and defend the Newspaper), we need a principle that says

IF such and such is true --> THEN you were justified in sounding skeptical.

(A) is a principle that lets you conclude it should not have been presented uncritically (i.e. it SHOULD have been presented with skepticism)

(B) is a principle that lets you conclude that you should be skeptical of certain claims.

(C) is a principle that lets you conclude that you should continue to trust a source. This is the opposite of what we want. This sounds more like something that would strengthen the author's position. He's saying "Hanlon has been trusted, so you should have still trusted him (shouldn't have sounded skeptical".

(D) is a principle that lets you conclude that people should NOT publicize their alien sightings. This principle only affects Hanlon's behavior, not the newspaper's.

(E) is a principle that lets you conclude that a newspaper should NOT publish a report. That's not a good match. We our defending the newspaper's right to publish the report with a lot of skepticism.

Since only (A) and (B) were principles that could conclude "the paper SHOULD have been skeptical", let's see which one is better triggered by the Evidence.

To trigger (A) we need to know that Hanlon's claim was extraordinary and that it was NOT backed by evidence of an extraordinarily high standard.

Do we know that?

Sure. It's identified as 'extraordinary' and as far as we know Hanlon didn't back up his claim with any evidence of extremely high standards.

For (B), we need to know if Hanlon's claim is based on testimonial evidence that was acquired through an intermediary source.

Do we know that?

Heavens no. 'Intermediary source'?

The correct answer is (A).

[jm.kahn]

(D) is a principle that lets you conclude that people should NOT publicize their alien sightings. This principle only affects Hanlon's behavior, not the newspaper's.

Why does principle affecting only Hanlon automatically makes it not in conflict with the argument?

If the principle in D says that Hanlon should not have done something, and the argument/stimulus assumes that Hanlon did that something, then the principle is clearly in conflict with the argument/stimulus because the argument then relies on Hanlon doing X, which the principle forbade.

In the case of D, the principle forbids Hanlon from publicizing the fact about supernatural phenomenon. The stimulus says that Hanlon claimed the observation about the supernatural phenomenon, thus publicizing it. So according to the principle in D, Hanlon shouldn't publicized his observation. Since the stim assumes that Hanlon didn't do anything that he shouldn't have done (which is why stim takes issue with the skeptical tone of the newspaper), D would be in conflict with the stim.

The only reason I can see why D can be eliminated is that claiming to have seen supernatural phenomenon is not necessarily publicizing it. Can an expert please explain the original issue posted in the beginning of this post and this reasoning?

[vstoever]

definitely some of the wording in the new LSATs has thrown me off such as "conflicts with which principle" I don't remember seeing these types of question stems in the older LSATs Just something to get used to. But I guess it's the equivalent of weaken