matthew.mainen Wrote:I'd greatly appreciate some more comments on why C is preferable to E. The way I see it, C is a perfect fit whereas with E you have to draw out implications for it to work.
daniel Wrote: If we match the normative phrasing of the original's necessary condition, but retain the perspective inherent in (E), we'd have something like the following:
"One should be able to choose for oneself the people with whom one will associate, if doing so could make it easier to live an enjoyable life."
Does this resolve all the issues? I think so. Although there are some deviations in wording from the original argument ("easier" versus "less difficult", "could" versus "is able to", "should not be denied freedom" versus "should be able to choose"), I believe these are all close enough (if not exactly the same) in meaning that they would not warrant being classified as incorrect.
matthew.mainen Wrote:daniel Wrote: If we match the normative phrasing of the original's necessary condition, but retain the perspective inherent in (E), we'd have something like the following:
"One should be able to choose for oneself the people with whom one will associate, if doing so could make it easier to live an enjoyable life."
Does this resolve all the issues? I think so. Although there are some deviations in wording from the original argument ("easier" versus "less difficult", "could" versus "is able to", "should not be denied freedom" versus "should be able to choose"), I believe these are all close enough (if not exactly the same) in meaning that they would not warrant being classified as incorrect.
Yeah, that's what I am getting at. It appears that E is the logical equivalent to C. So then does this problem all boil down to wording - which answer more directly addresses the stimulus as it's written?
matthew.mainen Wrote:Wait -- are you reading the "may" in E as meaning "its possible?" I'm reading the "may" as meaning "is allowed to."
Even so, I'm seeing now how this can be seen as weak. Just because someone is allowed to do something , it doesn't mean that they should be ALLOWED to do that (not be denied the freedom to do it). After all, one may (is permitted to) smoke in a house with children . it doesn't mean they shouldn't be denied that freedom.
christine.defenbaugh Wrote:matthew.mainen and daniel, you've got some killer discussion going on here! You've really worked to the heart of this tempting wrong answer choice. The lack of "should", the fact that it applies to a limited field, and the possible ambiguity of the word "may" are excellent reasons to eliminate (E)!
I'd like to pull together all of the fantastic thoughts here into one shot for the sake of future readers, and add just a few tweaks of my own. Please let me know if I miss anything!
To tackle this question from the top, I'll expand slightly on some of the great analysis by qccgraphix above.
When attacking Principle support questions, we need to start with the core:Premise: One can find acceptance by choosing assoc. w/ shared beliefs.
If one 1) has this acceptance and 2) can make lifestyle/belief choices, then it's easier to live enjoyable life.
Conclusion: No one should be denied the freedom to choose assoc.
While choosing one's associates doesn't guarantee less difficulty in living an enjoyable life, it certainly opens up the possibility! We need a principle, or rule, that gets us from that idea to the conclusion that no one should then be denied the freedom to do precisely that.
(C) steps up to the plate. The trigger here requires merely that the freedom in question have the possibility of making it less difficult for someone to live an enjoyable life, which our premises fully support. The result is the blanket normative prohibition that no one should be denied the freedom, which matches our conclusion perfectly.
The Unprincipled
(A) This blanket prohibition attempts to protect the freedom to make lifestyle choices, which is an altogether different freedom that that protected by the conclusion.
(B) The conclusion protects the freedom to choose, while this rule would dictate to people who they ought to associate with.
(D) This rule would only apply the protection to those people whose enjoyment of life depends on having like-minded friends. The protection in the conclusion would apply to everyone.
(E) There are a few problems with this rule:1) The grammar used here means that the protection would only apply to those people for whom choosing associates could make it easier to live an enjoyable life. The protection in the conclusion applied to everyone.
2) It is ambiguous whether "may" is used here to denote the mere possibility of choosing or that one is explicitly permitted to choose. Both uses are flawed.
If "may" is meant to express a mere possibility (as in "Joe may go to the party, or he may not"), then this ambiguity is clearly not a match to idea that "no one should be denied the freedom".
However, if "may" is instead intended to convey explicit permission, a different problem appears. "Everyone may choose" might be rewritten as "No one is denied the freedom to choose". However the conclusion was "no one SHOULD be denied the freedom to choose". "May" as explicit permission describes a situation as it is, while "should" describes a situation as it ought to be. Dropping the "should" prevents this principle from matching our conclusion!
Should is a very powerful word on the LSAT! Always take note of it when it appears, and be aware when arguments shift from descriptions of the way things are to the way they ought to be!
Again, bravo to both of you for an excellent discussion on the (de)merits of (E)!
erikwoodward10 Wrote:Is E additionally wrong because "choosing for oneself the people with whom one will associate" isn't by itself sufficient to "make it less difficult to live an enjoyable life? The relationship in the stimulus gives us TWO SCs ("choosing for one self" and "make life style choices in accordance with personal beliefs") that trigger the NC ("make it less difficult").
I realize that E qualifies itself by saying that it "could" trigger the NC, which can be interpreted as "it could if the second SC was triggered as well".
Hope this makes sense. Just wondering if this is a valid reason to eliminate E in addition to what is posted above.
[/quote]christine.defenbaugh Wrote:
When attacking Principle support questions, we need to start with the core:Premise: One can find acceptance by choosing assoc. w/ shared beliefs.
If one 1) has this acceptance and 2) can make lifestyle/belief choices, then it's easier to live enjoyable life.
Conclusion: No one should be denied the freedom to choose assoc.
ohthatpatrick Wrote:I think you're correct to say that how she was representing it was not conveying well the sequential nature of the events, but you wouldn't break those two things up with conditional arrows.
You started using conditional arrows to imply chronology, but conditional arrows only imply certainty.
We might say, "Being a practicing lawyer requires doing well enough on the LSAT to get into an accredited law school and then doing well enough on the Bar exam to pass it."
And we would symbolize that conditionally as:
"Practicing lawyer --> Did well enough on LSAT and Did well enough on Bar Exam"
It would be interchangeable for us to say
"Practicing lawyer --> Did well enough on Bar Exam and Did well enough on LSAT"
It would not be correct for us to say
"Practicing lawyer --> Did well enough on LSAT --> Did well enough on Bar Exam"
That last one doesn't work in terms of chronology or certainty.
The chronology of this isn't hugely important or clear. For example, when does the 2nd sentence occur? Do we pick our friends BEFORE we've made our lifestyle choices or after?
It could be:
We have personal beliefs, we make corresponding lifestyle choices, we pick friends that align, we see our choices are accepted
or it could be the same with ingredients 2 and 3 switched.
Long story short, you're right that something about the meaning of the paragraph wasn't being fully conveyed, but what she was saying wasn't wrong and there doesn't seem to be a clearer way to represent it with conditional logic.