Q22 - Does the position of the car driver's seat

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Determine the Function (describe the role played by the claim that ____ )

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The position of the driver's seat probably has a big impact on driving safety.
Evidence: The seat position can impact comfort, which can impact fatigue (dangerous). The seat position can impact visibility, which can impact your awareness of road conditions/obstacles (affecting safety).

Answer Anticipation:
Any time on LSAT that an author poses a question, the answer to that question is usually going to be the author's main purpose/point. Here our author immediately answer the question in the affirmative, and then the rest of the argument is support for that judgment. They're asking about the 3rd sentence, which is part of the big block of premises. Since Determine Function questions like to sometimes offer us the option of "intermediate conclusion", is it fair to elevate this premise to Intermediate Conclusion? Does the 3rd sentence get unpacked or supported by any other idea? It doesn't. Although the last two sentences mention comfort and visibility, they are connecting comfort and visibility to safety. The 3rd sentence is connecting comfort and visibility to driving position. So the last two sentences aren't reasons why we should believe the 3rd sentence. Thus, we'll just call this claim a Premise, not an Intermediate Conclusion. (Anything that sounds like "it supports the conclusion" could work)

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Nope, "it probably does" is the main conclusion.

(B) Our claim is part of the support, so "the argument shows to be inconsistent" is going opposite direction.

(C) Hard to match that up. Was there some observed phenomenon? No. If we had a statistic like "people whose driver seat position is more erect are less likely to be involved in accidents than are drivers with reclined positions", then our claim might provide a causal explanation for that phenomenon.

(D) Our claim is part of the support, so "the argument refutes" is opposite direction.

(E) YES! Part of the support.

Takeaway/Pattern: As long as we hear the author's opinion in the 2nd sentence, we'll see that the rest of the argument is the author supporting that claim, thus anything they ask us about in that area will be safe to call a 'premise'.

#officialexplanation

[phlee004]

Can anyone help me eliminate C? The answer guide says C is incorrect because everything in the stimulus is "abstract, not a "phenomenon." I'm confused as to what that means. Please help!


Thanks!

-Phil

[giladedelman]

Good question!

A phenomenon is something that happens. So when we talk about an "observed phenomenon" we're talking about something real that we have seen, or have evidence to show, actually taking place.

Abstract, on the other hand, means something that exists as an idea or theory, but not concretely. The examples this argument gives are abstract because they don't refer to any specific events that have taken place in the world; rather, the argument is talking about a hypothetical driver and the hypothetical benefits of better seat positioning.

Jeez, I feel like this is above my pay grade! Did that explanation make sense? Let me know.

[rinagoldfield]

Here's my fully diagrammed two-cents worth. I think you'll find it pays off!

[zmeng90]

can someone explain to me why the line in question is a premise and is not an intermediate conclusion?

thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure thing.

An intermediate conclusion, like all conclusions, should be a supported idea. To qualify as a conclusion, the argument must have provided a reason for believing it.

If we say the statement,
"driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road"
and then ask "Why?"
is there any reason offered?

Why does driving position affect both comfort and ability to see the road?
Because a driver who is uncomfortable eventually becomes fatigued?

That doesn't seem like an appropriate answer to the question.

Why does driving position affect both comfort and ability to see the road?
Because the better the visibility, the more aware the driver is?

That's not a sensible answer.

I'm sure you were tempted to think of this sentence as an intermediate conclusion because it initially brings up comfort/ability to see and the following two sentences expand on those ideas.

But those sentences don't explain WHY driving position affects comfort/visibility. They just discuss possible ramifications of poor comfort or good visibility.

In the real world, why DOES driving position affect comfort/visibility?

For obvious reasons ... if you're too close or too far from the wheel/pedals it can be uncomfortable ... and obviously your position in the car affects your viewpoints (maybe some positions have different blind spots than others) so that affects your ability to see. Notice that these actual REASONS for why driving position affects comfort/visibility sound nothing like the final two sentences.

The argument just throws out "driving position affects comfort/visibility" as an unsupported idea, thus, a premise.

Hope this helps.

[hnadgauda]

Just curious--what role does the first sentence play in the argument? I would say it's a question that the conclusion answers. Is the first sentence considered to be a premise?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I agree with how you categorized it.

A question couldn't really ever be a premise, because a question doesn't by itself have a truth value.


FOR EXAMPLE
conc - Meg would love these chocolate chip cookies
question - Does Meg like the flavor of chocolate?

(this can't be called a premise because answering YES would support but answering NO would undermine the conclusion)