Q23 - Sabina: The words used

[martintp]

I had a really hard time deciphering the stimulus furthermore I dont even understand E.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a fun one! Thanks for bringing it to the forum.

Sabina says that words have no impact on whether an argument is good or bad. Emile says that badly chosen words can make even the soundest argument a bad one. So they disagree about whether a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion (in this case, words) can cause an argument to be a bad one.

Answer choice (E) best represents this. It's a little tricky to parse because it's so abstract, but whenever you see an abstract answer choice, try substituting information from the stimulus into the abstract language in the answer. Here, if we substitute "words" for "a factor that affects....," answer choice (E) is much easier to understand.

Let's look at the incorrect answers though...

(A) is not addressed by Emile. Sabina addresses this issue but doesn't suggest what happens if the words are not clearly defined. It's not the definitions necessarily according to Sabina that affect the soundness of the conclusion but rather the words. Emile, however, says that that definitions can affect how people respond to words, but does not address whether they affect either the facts or the conclusion based upon those facts.
(B) Emile would not necessarily disagree since she says that many words have connotations regardless of how they are defined. But that doesn't mean that all words carry such connotations. Sabina doesn't address the issue.
(C) is not something that either Sabina or Emile address directly, but is probably something they would both agree with.
(D) is not addressed by either Sabina or Emile. Neither prescribes a course of action based on whether an argument's soundness can be affected by words.


#officialexplanation

[theanswer21324]

that was a great response, thanks

im still a little bit unclear about (E) though. i think the answer choice bothered me because it said "a factor...can cause an argument to be a bad one" instead of "words can cause an argument to be a bad one" (which i think would have been more appropriate for a correct answer). i have a problem with that characterization because emile never says that words "affect neither the truth of an argument's premisses etc." - only sabina says this in her first sentence. on that basis alone, how would you even know whether emile agrees or disagrees with that characterization of words?

also, can we even assume that "a factor" is supposed to mean "words" in this answer choice? they could agree that another "factor that affects neither the turth...can cause an argument to be a bad one" (like syntax for example). the answer choice seems really vague and struck me as leaving open the possibility that it did not necessarily refer to "words," which was the real point at issue. im just a little bit confused since i've never really seen a correct answer choice in a point at issue question characterized like this

hopefully that made sense and thanks in advance!

[lhermary]

I'm hoping someone can help me out with this one. I was under the assumption that Emile assumed that badly chosen words did affect the truth of an argument. I assumed this because of her last sentence 'Peoples acknowledgement of a fact if affected by how the fact is expressed'

Where does it say in her (Emile's) argument that it neither affect the truth of an argument's premise or relationship between the premise and conclusion.

Thanks

[Mab6q]

This is a tough one that I struggled with so I thought I'd try and break it down.

Sabina:

Words used in expressing facts dont affect the facts or the conclusion those facts support.

If words clearly defined and consistently used, the actual words chosen make no difference for argument's soundness.

Conclusion: how an argument is expressed can have no bearing on whether it is a good argument.

Emile:

Conclusion: Badly chosen words make good arguments poor ones.

WHY: well many words have connotation attached to them that influence people's responses to the claims made.

And since people's acknowledgement of a fact comes from how the fact is expressed, the conclusion is also affected.

So, the two seem to disagree over the impact that words used in expression of a fact or conclusion have on that fact or conclusion. Sabina says there's no affect, while Emile say's there is an affect because of the connotations around the words.

Answer Choices:

A. This is what I originally choose. It's good to leave as a contender, but you have to acknowledge that it's hard to discern Emile's position on this. It's not about altering the facts or defining words, but about how people will judge the facts that Emile tries to emphasize. Likewise for Sabina, it's not a given that she would disagree because her first statement is about words used in expressing facts, not using a word differently, and her second statement is about words being defined consistently.

B. Emile does not say all words have a political or social connotations or if they do it must be considered.

C. Neither would care to disagree

D. Neither addresses what would be a good policy. This one is off. Even though Sabina believes words expressing a claim don't affect the claim, she would not necessarily disagree here.

E. Tricky because of "a factor". Emile would definitely agree, as she would point to political connotation. Now, when we look to Sabina, the "a factor" is a problem because she could hold that a certain factor that she does not address might, but here we have to remember that we don't always get perfect answers on the LSAT. It comes down to A and E and if we realize that the two conclusions are not about defining words (A), we have to go with E and look past the issue. If "a factor" is words expressing facts, then Sabina definitely disagrees.

Not my favorite problem but E is the best choice we got.

[xiuqis704]

I am struggling with answer choice (C). Sabina would definitely agree with it because he only values the soundness of an argument, not the words used. Emile says "Badly chosen words can make even the soundness argument a poor one," so it follows that a sound argument can be worse than an unsound argument if using badly chosen words. Can someone help me clear my head. Thanks a lot.