Q21 - The cities of Oldtown and

[noah]

The wrong answers to flaw questions fall into only a few categories. Most of them are out of scope or unsupported. I think the trickiest ones, as you mention, are ones that have strange wording. I suggest you delve deep into those strange ones so that you build up your ability to untangle them. The goal is to be able to quickly say "that sounds good, but you didn't do that!" -- which is usually the situation with those.

The core of this argument is that Spoonville must have the same problems as Oldtown since they two cities have the same area and population size.

The flaw in this argument, which ideally you noticed as you considered before looking at the answer choices, is that there could be other factors that cause the health problems in Oldtown. Maybe there are rats there. (E) nails this issue. It basically says that the argument ignored that while they could have the same size and population (density), there could be other issues that make one more livable than the other.

I suggest you try to untangle all the other answers and then see if you interpret them somehow differently than I do (and perhaps you have a more accurate read than this).

(A) is basically saying that the argument says that the conditions cannot be caused by the living conditions. The argument doesn't say this.
(B) says that the argument combines populations number and physical area. The argument doesn't do this. It notes both of them.
(C) is out of scope. There's no discussion of life expectancy.
(D) is out of scope. There's no discussion of the severity of the different health problems.

[skapur777]

With regards to E,

the choice says it fails to take into account that having an identical density can still mean great disparity in living conditions? I'm just confused by the word 'consistent', and how it is used here.

[noah]

"consistent" means "doesn't contradict" - or, in other words, it could be a support (but isn't necessarily).

All rich people eat caviar.

The above is consistent with both of these:

Caviar causes wealth.
Wealth causes one to eat caviar.

Make sense?

[shodges]

How frustrating. The wording they chose for the correct answer really threw me off. Is the use of "consistent" here something I should note because it's found on other LSATs or is it more of a one time thing?

[noah]

How frustrating. The wording they chose for the correct answer really threw me off. Is the use of "consistent" here something I should note because it's found on other LSATs or is it more of a one time thing?

I'd say let this forum thread burn this fact into your brain!

It doesn't come up often, but has come up a few times. In other words, using the word "consistent" in an argument is consistent with how the LSAT writes arguments.

[mcrittell]

I'm trying to translate E so I get it crystal-clear: "fails to assume that having similar pop. density 'doesn't contradict' great disparity in living conditions."

I didn't choose this answer bc it seemed to do the opposite of what needs to be said. Can someone clarify please? Thanks!

[noah]

I'm trying to translate E so I get it crystal-clear: "fails to assume that having similar pop. density 'doesn't contradict' great disparity in living conditions."

I didn't choose this answer bc it seemed to do the opposite of what needs to be said. Can someone clarify please? Thanks!

It might be that you haven't yet absorbed what "doesn't contradict" means. It means that it's OK if those two things go together.

Think about this analogously flawed argument:

Tom and Lucy are the same height, so they must be equally good at basketball.

What's the assumption (and thus flaw)? Obviously, being the same height doesn't mean you have to be equally good at basketball! Two people could be the same height and NOT be equally good.

In fancier words, it wouldn't be a problem--it wouldn't be inconsistent, or it would be consistent--for two equally tall people to be unequally good at basketball--have a great disparity.

So, we can say that the flaw in the argument above is that it fails to take into account that being of identical heights is consistent (meaning it doesn't contradict) with great disparity in basketball ability.

Back to Oldtown and Spoonville - can you tell me what E means now? If not, I'll keep explaining.

[hallamstanton]

So if I have this right, when it says "fails to take into account....in living conditions", what it's saying is "fails to state as an explicit assumption that overall population density is consistent with great disparity in living conditions".

Is that right (p.s. first time poster, so please be gentle)?

[noah]

So if I have this right, when it says "fails to take into account....in living conditions", what it's saying is "fails to state as an explicit assumption that overall population density is consistent with great disparity in living conditions".

Is that right (p.s. first time poster, so please be gentle)?

Welcome aboard! And have no fear, most people here are pretty friendly, and those that aren't are clearly suffering inside, so we should just pity them.

Anyway, you actually have it reversed. To back up, there are two ways to talk about flaws:

1. Point out an assumption - this often begins with "Takes for granted..." or similar language.

2. Give an example of something that goes against the assumption - this often begins with "Fails to consider..." sort of language.

Here, we're dealing #2. The argument is ignoring that two cities can have the same population might have great differences in other ways.

The "consistent with" just means that one thing doesn't preclude (or prohibit) the other.

Make sense?

[sumukh09]

So if I understand this correctly, E says that even though Oldtown and Spoonville have identical population densities, there may nonetheless be a difference in the living conditions in Oldtown that is causing the health problems in that city, but whatever it is that's causing those health problems might not be present in Spoonville?

[noah]

So if I understand this correctly, E says that even though Oldtown and Spoonville have identical population densities, there may nonetheless be a difference in the living conditions in Oldtown that is causing the health problems in that city, but whatever it is that's causing those health problems might not be present in Spoonville?

Yup

[nflamel69]

Hey Noah,

I have a slightly different take on this problem when I went back to it today. The argument core to me is:

P: there are certain health problems that are caused by crowded living condition in Oldtown

P: they have the same area+ population, which means the same population density OVERALL

C: the health problems must be as WIDESPREAD in Spoonville.

I thought the problem is that we don't necessarily have to consider there are other factors that could cause the problem, but it could be the fact that 50 percent of spoonsville people live in 1 percent of their land, maybe their capitol. but the rest of them spread evenly. Then even though we have the same population density OVERALL, the local region is different. And if local regions are overcrowded, then such health conditions may not be there, hence the phrase great disparity in living conditions; I feel the keyword here is the word widespread.

What do you think?

[noah]

Hey Noah,

I have a slightly different take on this problem when I went back to it today. The argument core to me is:

P: there are certain health problems that are caused by crowded living condition in Oldtown

P: they have the same area+ population, which means the same population density OVERALL

C: the health problems must be as WIDESPREAD in Spoonville.

I thought the problem is that we don't necessarily have to consider there are other factors that could cause the problem, but it could be the fact that 50 percent of spoonsville people live in 1 percent of their land, maybe their capitol. but the rest of them spread evenly. Then even though we have the same population density OVERALL, the local region is different. And if local regions are overcrowded, then such health conditions may not be there, hence the phrase great disparity in living conditions; I feel the keyword here is the word widespread.

What do you think?

That's pretty slick thinking, but I believe it all falls under "other factors beside area and population."

[WaltGrace1983]

"consistent" means "doesn't contradict" - or, in other words, it could be a support (but isn't necessarily).

All rich people eat caviar.

The above is consistent with both of these:

Caviar causes wealth.
Wealth causes one to eat caviar.

Make sense?

Off topic (kind of) but how is "all rich people eat caviar" consistent with "caviar causes wealth" or "wealth causes one to eat caviar?" It seems that both of these statements rely on huge assumptions.

[WaltGrace1983]

As for my explanation, here is what I have found. I tend to agree with the latest poster in my thought process and I arrived at the right answer.

Oldtown and Spoonville are same in (1) area and (2) population size
+
There are health problems in Oldtown caused by crowded living conditions
→
Spoonville must be subject to the same health problems

The flaw here is that, just because the city takes up the same amount of room and has the same population, doesn't mean that their living conditions are the same! As we know, Oldtown's health problems are "caused by crowded living conditions." Thus, the argument is assuming that the living conditions are in fact the same. Yet maybe Oldtown has everyone living in apartment buildings with 82 families in one apartment building and sickness runs rampant because of that while Spoonville is more spread out (while having the same actual area of the actual city). This is what I immediately thought of.

Side note: Now if their living conditions are the same then we can absolutely conclude that their health conditions are the same. Why? Notice that in the stimulus it says that the health problems are caused by living conditions. Thus, same living conditions = same health problems.

(A) We are not talking about "any" particular city! We are only talking about two cities really. Also, this goes agains the premise because we have already shown that health problems CAN be caused by living conditions
(B) Nothing is getting confused here
(C) Average life expectancy? Scope.
(D) Easily treatable health problems? Scope.
(E) Correct. The argument fails to consider that two cities can have the same population density without the same living conditions. This is what we pre-phrased.

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

"Consistent with" doesn't mean causation, it just means that there's no contradiction. For example:

"Tuna is delicious" is consistent with "Many people enjoy tuna." They aren't the same, or causative or anything, just consistent.

"Music causes cancer" is not consistent with "Every child should be involved in every art form."

Make more sense?

-t