Q22 - Once people habitually engaged

[Shiggins]

I got this one quick by just matching up the extreme conclusion in both C and the stimulus.

I just have a question about the flaw. The conclusion in both is an extreme stating there is only one method of action to bring about a solution. In choice C it states that spectator sports could lead to no physical activity. Then concludes that if you do not want health to deteriorate then the only solution is to get rid of spectator sports. The stimulus does the same since it says when the tv is on is leads to the problem, But what about when the tv is off. If someone could help clarify this.

I thought of an example to hopefully help myself:
Excess consumption leads to weight gain. This is a definite conditional statement. Other things can lead to weight gain.
If no weight gain we can be sure that person was not excessively consuming chocolate.

Chocolate can lead to weight gain. This is not as strong.
Chocolate is insufficient to determine anything about weight gain, since it could lead to it or not. If someone were to conclude the only way to not gain weight is to eliminate chocolate they would be overlooking the cases where chocolate does not lead to weight gain. If someone could clarify this much appreciated.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question Shiggens!

just have a question about the flaw. The conclusion in both is an extreme stating there is only one method of action to bring about a solution. In choice C it states that spectator sports could lead to no physical activity. Then concludes that if you do not want health to deteriorate then the only solution is to get rid of spectator sports. The stimulus does the same since it says when the tv is on is leads to the problem, But what about when the tv is off. If someone could help clarify this.

I think the argument was not meant to be read too literally here - but rather a bit more folksy. So "getting rid of the TV" is essentially the same as turning it off. It can be frustrating when you need to differentiate those times to read the LSAT language very precisely and those times when you need to read it like an average human being.

So just like getting rid of the TV is like turning it off, so too in answer choice (C) is getting rid of spectator sports the same as not engaging in them.

Hope that answers your question, but if not, let me know!

[ericha3535]

I was stuck between C and D;

I thought the original argument presented the exclusivity fallacy, where turning off TV is the ONLY solution to the problem; well, other methods could be just as effective as that solution...

Both C and D say this: you have this problem, and to solve this, there is ONLY one solution...

what's the difference between C and D?

Wait... is D wrong because it commits another fallacy? As far as I am concerned D said something about government...

So... bring up some concept that was never talked about... or D is making an unwarranted assumption that the government is the one who is going to solve the question?

[agersh144]

I was stuck between C and D;

I thought the original argument presented the exclusivity fallacy, where turning off TV is the ONLY solution to the problem; well, other methods could be just as effective as that solution...

Both C and D say this: you have this problem, and to solve this, there is ONLY one solution...

what's the difference between C and D?

Wait... is D wrong because it commits another fallacy? As far as I am concerned D said something about government...

So... bring up some concept that was never talked about... or D is making an unwarranted assumption that the government is the one who is going to solve the question?

I think in order for D to work it would have to say something like "Since people are spoiled by the private car we are worse off...the only solution to get people to be willing to tailor their day to constraints again [not be so spoiled] would be to get rid of the private car.

In actuality D talks about offering financial incentives which doesn't match our stimulus. Hope this helps.

[mnsbaseball]

Whether how I did this was correct or not, it's worth a share in my opinion!

In the stimulus I followed this logic chain:

TV on -> Communication Stops
-Communication -> Family Snap THEREFORE -TV

It's crude and elementary and possibly is the worst way to get to my point.

Answer C follows the same chain:

Watch Spectator -> Physical Exc.
-Physical Exc. -> Health Sucks THEREFORE -Watch Spectator

If you follow along you'll understand what I'm saying.

Is it possible to receive negative thanks?

[WaltGrace1983]

Whether how I did this was correct or not, it's worth a share in my opinion!

In the stimulus I followed this logic chain:

TV on -> Communication Stops
-Communication -> Family Snap THEREFORE -TV

It's crude and elementary and possibly is the worst way to get to my point.

Answer C follows the same chain:

Watch Spectator -> Physical Exc.
-Physical Exc. -> Health Sucks THEREFORE -Watch Spectator

If you follow along you'll understand what I'm saying.

Is it possible to receive negative thanks?

Looks good. Though I'd suggest that you would match up the conditionals like so:

TV on -> ~Communication
~Communication -> Family Snap

--> Only solution = ~TV

It just seems a bit easier to digest when you do it that way rather than switching between "No communication" and "~Communication"

(A), (B), and (E) can be quickly eliminated because their conclusions are not about being the "only way" to do something.

(D) is a bit tricky but it fails to offer the second premise. As mentioned above, it really needs to add something about the deleterious nature of being "spoiled by the private car."

(C) matches perfectly. It has two premises and concludes that there is ONLY one remedy. It is otherwise committing the same false dilemma fallacy.