I got this question correct, but it was a guess between A and B and I have no idea how I would get this correct again. I eliminated A, C, D, and E, but I'm still not sure why B is correct.
Thanks,
E
LSAT Forum
13 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- egirarde
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 2
- Joined: September 04th, 2011
-
- giladedelman
-
Thanks Received: 833
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 619
- Joined: April 04th, 2010
- This post thanked 6 times.
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
Thanks for your post! First of all, getting rid of four wrong answers is a perfectly reliable way to deal with an LR question, particularly a difficult one. But you're right that it's best to also see why the right answer is right.
To figure out the assumption we're looking for, it's essential to spot the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Actually, we have two premises:
1) unlikely that someone sees history as working out of moral themes unless he or she holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs
2) the more history one knows, the less inclined one becomes to judge human behavior morally
From these premises, we're trying to conclude that the more history you know, the less likely you are to see history as a working out of moral themes.
Well, hmm. We know that the less history you know, the less inclined you are to judge people morally. But what is the connection between judging human behavior morally, on the one hand, and seeing history as blah blah moral themes, on the other? There is no connection! If we did know that being less likely to judge people made you less likely to see history in this certain way -- that is, if we assumed this to be so -- then the conclusion would make sense.
That's why (B) is correct. It gives us the missing link, so that we can conclude that knowing more history makes you less likely to see it as the working out of moral themes.
As for those wrong answers:
(A) is out because we don't care about which particular historical events elicit a theme; we care about viewing history this way in general.
(C) has two detail distortions: "understanding" history versus just "knowing" it, and "attributing moral significance" instead of "seeing history as the working out of moral themes." So that's a problem. Also, even if we assume this, it doesn't mean that the more history you understand, the less moral significance you attach.
(D) is basically a premise booster. We already know what we need to know about the connection between moral beliefs and views of history. What we need, but don't get from this answer, is the connection between moral judgment and views of history.
(E) is incorrect because objectivity is 100% out of scope.
Does that clear this up, or are you still stumped by answer (B)?
To figure out the assumption we're looking for, it's essential to spot the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Actually, we have two premises:
1) unlikely that someone sees history as working out of moral themes unless he or she holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs
2) the more history one knows, the less inclined one becomes to judge human behavior morally
From these premises, we're trying to conclude that the more history you know, the less likely you are to see history as a working out of moral themes.
Well, hmm. We know that the less history you know, the less inclined you are to judge people morally. But what is the connection between judging human behavior morally, on the one hand, and seeing history as blah blah moral themes, on the other? There is no connection! If we did know that being less likely to judge people made you less likely to see history in this certain way -- that is, if we assumed this to be so -- then the conclusion would make sense.
That's why (B) is correct. It gives us the missing link, so that we can conclude that knowing more history makes you less likely to see it as the working out of moral themes.
As for those wrong answers:
(A) is out because we don't care about which particular historical events elicit a theme; we care about viewing history this way in general.
(C) has two detail distortions: "understanding" history versus just "knowing" it, and "attributing moral significance" instead of "seeing history as the working out of moral themes." So that's a problem. Also, even if we assume this, it doesn't mean that the more history you understand, the less moral significance you attach.
(D) is basically a premise booster. We already know what we need to know about the connection between moral beliefs and views of history. What we need, but don't get from this answer, is the connection between moral judgment and views of history.
(E) is incorrect because objectivity is 100% out of scope.
Does that clear this up, or are you still stumped by answer (B)?
-
- giladedelman
-
Thanks Received: 833
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 619
- Joined: April 04th, 2010
- This post thanked 8 times.
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely that someone would see histo
Reading back over that post, I realize that the dense content of this question is part of what makes it so tough. So here's a simpler example that has the exact same logical structure:
People are unlikely to enjoy pizza unless they enjoy cheese. But one's taste for milk fat decreases as one exercises more frequently. Therefore, the more a person exercises, the less likely that person is to enjoy pizza.
Premises:
1) you don't like pizza unless you like cheese
2) the more you exercise, the less you like milk fat
Conclusion: The more you exercise, the less likely you are to enjoy pizza.
The gap is exactly the same: we need to know that not liking milk fat leads to not liking cheese.
That example feels silly, but hopefully it helps illustrate the logic in an easier way.
People are unlikely to enjoy pizza unless they enjoy cheese. But one's taste for milk fat decreases as one exercises more frequently. Therefore, the more a person exercises, the less likely that person is to enjoy pizza.
Premises:
1) you don't like pizza unless you like cheese
2) the more you exercise, the less you like milk fat
Conclusion: The more you exercise, the less likely you are to enjoy pizza.
The gap is exactly the same: we need to know that not liking milk fat leads to not liking cheese.
That example feels silly, but hopefully it helps illustrate the logic in an easier way.
-
- katken
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 3
- Joined: February 19th, 2013
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
"But what is the connection between judging human behavior morally, on the one hand, and seeing history as blah blah moral themes, on the other? There is no connection! If we did know that being less likely to judge people made you less likely to see history in this certain way -- that is, if we assumed this to be so -- then the conclusion would make sense.
That's why (B) is correct. It gives us the missing link, so that we can conclude that knowing more history makes you less likely to see it as the working out of moral themes."
---
I'm having trouble seeing how (B) addresses the missing link between 1) judging HB morally, and 2) seeing history as MT. (B) likes 1) judging HB morally and 2) holding clear and unamb MB. I know there's a way to break this down into conditional logic but am struggling...
That's why (B) is correct. It gives us the missing link, so that we can conclude that knowing more history makes you less likely to see it as the working out of moral themes."
---
I'm having trouble seeing how (B) addresses the missing link between 1) judging HB morally, and 2) seeing history as MT. (B) likes 1) judging HB morally and 2) holding clear and unamb MB. I know there's a way to break this down into conditional logic but am struggling...
-
- sumukh09
-
Thanks Received: 139
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 327
- Joined: June 03rd, 2012
- Most Thanked
- First Responder
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
katken Wrote:"But what is the connection between judging human behavior morally, on the one hand, and seeing history as blah blah moral themes, on the other? There is no connection! If we did know that being less likely to judge people made you less likely to see history in this certain way -- that is, if we assumed this to be so -- then the conclusion would make sense.
That's why (B) is correct. It gives us the missing link, so that we can conclude that knowing more history makes you less likely to see it as the working out of moral themes."
---
I'm having trouble seeing how (B) addresses the missing link between 1) judging HB morally, and 2) seeing history as MT. (B) likes 1) judging HB morally and 2) holding clear and unamb MB. I know there's a way to break this down into conditional logic but am struggling...
(1) Not hold clear and unambiguous moral beliefs ---> unlikely someone would see history as the working out of moral themes
(2) Knowledge of History Increases ---> Inclination to morally judge human behaviour decreases
Conclusion:
(3) Knowledge of History Increases ---> unlikely someone would see history as the working out of moral themes
Or Abstractly,
~A ---> B
C---> D
-----------
C--->B
Gap: D ---> ~A
D = Inclination to morally judge human behaviour decreases
~A = Not hold clear and unambiguous moral beliefs
Answer Choice B says:
D --> ~A
-
- timsportschuetz
-
Thanks Received: 46
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 95
- Joined: June 30th, 2013
- First Responder
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
This answer choice, AGAIN, demonstrates the usefulness of the general tendency of trap answers to reverse the statements of the conclusion in the attractive wrong answer choices! Take a look at question #13 in this very same section! When you are torn between two extremely attractive answer choices (obviously, in this case, (B) and (D)), you CANNOT spend too much time diagramming and/or analysing the choices! If you do, you end up shooting yourself in the foot due to spending too much time on a single question (this is hugely important for success on this test!). So, when I took this test today, I immediately eliminated all answers other than (B) and (D). Then, instead of getting bogged down on details, I simply went back and took a look at the conclusion: --> clear and unambiguous moral beliefs. Look for the answer choice that follows this pattern by placing the above unique statement on the same side of the error! Answer choice (D), as is often the case with attractive wrong answers, does the following: clear and unambiguous moral beliefs -->. This is on the WRONG SIDE of the error! I literally have learned (by taking close to 40 PT's), that choosing (B) with the above technique when caught up with two extremely attractive answer choices that state the same unique term on opposite sides of the error, that I chose the credited answer 99% of the time! More importantly, this question took me roughly 45 seconds; I chose (B) and moved on, saving precious time for the next question (keep in mind, if you do this earlier in the section, these few seconds saved on each question, can make a world of difference!).
-
- mornincounselor
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 54
- Joined: June 25th, 2014
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
The pizza example explains this question well, and it reminds me the lesson about implanting les complicated elements in place of more convulted ones in order to better determine the structure of arguments.
Thanks.
Thanks.
-
- Laura Damone
-
Thanks Received: 94
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 468
- Joined: February 17th, 2011
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
Full Explanation
What does the stem tell us: “properly drawn if” = Sufficient Assumption
Breakdown the stimulus: The first statement is an “unless” statement, which means it’s conditional. The next two statements are about continuums: the more of X, the more of Y, which is also diagrammable. That means this is a good candidate for the “split the conclusion” technique for Sufficient Assumptions. The conclusion is dense and will require some abbreviation of its final term, so we’ll abstract it and say:
Know More Hist → Less likely to hold view X
Then, split it and try to build inward to find the missing link.
We can translate premise 1 by replacing “unless” with “if not,” giving us: “if not unambiguous moral beliefs, you’re less likely to hold view X.”
This connects to the last term in the conclusion, giving us:
Know More Hist... - Clear Moral Beliefs → Less likely to hold view X
Premise 2 tells us “as you know more hist, you’re less likely to make moral judgements.” This connects to the first term, giving us the full argument:
Know More Hist → less apt to judge ......... -Clear Moral Beliefs → Less likely to hold view X
Any prephrase? The missing link yet to be connected is between “less apt to judge” and the absence of Clear Moral Beliefs, making our prephrase:
“those less apt to make moral judgments are less apt to have clear unambiguous moral beliefs.
A) doesn’t provide the missing link. It introduces a new concept (moral disapproval) instead of linking the ones from the stimulus.
B) matches the prephrase!
C), like A, introduces a new concept (understanding history and attributing moral significance) instead of linking the ones from the stimulus.
D) puts forth that the continuum from premise 2 moves in both directions. The premise says “the less X, the less Y.” D tells us “the more X, the more Y.” That doesn’t make the argument valid because it doesn’t link that premise back to the one that came before it, so the hole in the argument remains.
E), like C and A, also introduces a new concept (subjects about which people possess, or fail to posses, extensive knowledge) instead of linking the ones from the stimulus.
Takeaway/Pattern: Spitting the conclusion on dense high-difficulty Sufficient Assumption questions allows you to come up with a solid prephrase, and conditions which a correct answer must meet, allowing for easy eliminations of answers that don’t meet said conditions. Once you know what concept (or concepts) must be addressed by the correct answer, the incorrect answers fall like dominoes.
What does the stem tell us: “properly drawn if” = Sufficient Assumption
Breakdown the stimulus: The first statement is an “unless” statement, which means it’s conditional. The next two statements are about continuums: the more of X, the more of Y, which is also diagrammable. That means this is a good candidate for the “split the conclusion” technique for Sufficient Assumptions. The conclusion is dense and will require some abbreviation of its final term, so we’ll abstract it and say:
Know More Hist → Less likely to hold view X
Then, split it and try to build inward to find the missing link.
We can translate premise 1 by replacing “unless” with “if not,” giving us: “if not unambiguous moral beliefs, you’re less likely to hold view X.”
This connects to the last term in the conclusion, giving us:
Know More Hist... - Clear Moral Beliefs → Less likely to hold view X
Premise 2 tells us “as you know more hist, you’re less likely to make moral judgements.” This connects to the first term, giving us the full argument:
Know More Hist → less apt to judge ......... -Clear Moral Beliefs → Less likely to hold view X
Any prephrase? The missing link yet to be connected is between “less apt to judge” and the absence of Clear Moral Beliefs, making our prephrase:
“those less apt to make moral judgments are less apt to have clear unambiguous moral beliefs.
A) doesn’t provide the missing link. It introduces a new concept (moral disapproval) instead of linking the ones from the stimulus.
B) matches the prephrase!
C), like A, introduces a new concept (understanding history and attributing moral significance) instead of linking the ones from the stimulus.
D) puts forth that the continuum from premise 2 moves in both directions. The premise says “the less X, the less Y.” D tells us “the more X, the more Y.” That doesn’t make the argument valid because it doesn’t link that premise back to the one that came before it, so the hole in the argument remains.
E), like C and A, also introduces a new concept (subjects about which people possess, or fail to posses, extensive knowledge) instead of linking the ones from the stimulus.
Takeaway/Pattern: Spitting the conclusion on dense high-difficulty Sufficient Assumption questions allows you to come up with a solid prephrase, and conditions which a correct answer must meet, allowing for easy eliminations of answers that don’t meet said conditions. Once you know what concept (or concepts) must be addressed by the correct answer, the incorrect answers fall like dominoes.
Laura Damone
LSAT Content & Curriculum Lead | Manhattan Prep
LSAT Content & Curriculum Lead | Manhattan Prep
-
- g1oriaaa
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 3
- Joined: September 17th, 2015
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
(Please correct me if I am wrong with anything)
the stimulus says:
(if not) a ---> unlikely b
more c ---> less d
------------------------------
more c ----> the more unlikely b
Where "(if not) a" = unless he or she held clear an unambiguous moral beliefs
"unlikely b" = it is unlikely that someone would see history as the working out of moral themes
"more c" = ones knowledge of history increase
"less d" = ones inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases
to make sense of it in your head reaarange them to say:
more c ---> less d
(if not) a ---> unlikely b
------------------------------
more c ----> the more unlikely b
now you can see the gap!!!! The historian is trying to make an argument that goes like this
A ---> B
C---->D
-------------------
A ----->D
But the historian forgot to make the connection between B and C!!
so "less d" needs to be connected to "(if not) a" (which is exactly what answer choice B says) and then all of it can finally be read like this left to right
more c ---> less d ---> (if not) a ---> the more unlikely b
this is what sufficient condition questions are all about: they strengthen the argument completely 100%! If the answer choice is correct then it is necessary that the conclusion of the argument in the stimulus follows and that usually occurs via plugging up a gap in the argument.
A further analysis of the question in it's entirety allows me to also conclude that although it was easy to knock out the incorrect answer choices (as this thread oh so wonderfully explains) the reason why I think it was difficult to see the correct answer choice immediately is because there was technically no "new element" in the argument (this is why some people say "I got it right based on a gut feeling.") We are taught in various lsat course methods that the answer to a sufficient assumption question will include any new element in the the conclusion not mentioned in the premises or any elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion. But here all the elements were introduced it was just a matter of all them being connected.
the stimulus says:
(if not) a ---> unlikely b
more c ---> less d
------------------------------
more c ----> the more unlikely b
Where "(if not) a" = unless he or she held clear an unambiguous moral beliefs
"unlikely b" = it is unlikely that someone would see history as the working out of moral themes
"more c" = ones knowledge of history increase
"less d" = ones inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases
to make sense of it in your head reaarange them to say:
more c ---> less d
(if not) a ---> unlikely b
------------------------------
more c ----> the more unlikely b
now you can see the gap!!!! The historian is trying to make an argument that goes like this
A ---> B
C---->D
-------------------
A ----->D
But the historian forgot to make the connection between B and C!!
so "less d" needs to be connected to "(if not) a" (which is exactly what answer choice B says) and then all of it can finally be read like this left to right
more c ---> less d ---> (if not) a ---> the more unlikely b
this is what sufficient condition questions are all about: they strengthen the argument completely 100%! If the answer choice is correct then it is necessary that the conclusion of the argument in the stimulus follows and that usually occurs via plugging up a gap in the argument.
A further analysis of the question in it's entirety allows me to also conclude that although it was easy to knock out the incorrect answer choices (as this thread oh so wonderfully explains) the reason why I think it was difficult to see the correct answer choice immediately is because there was technically no "new element" in the argument (this is why some people say "I got it right based on a gut feeling.") We are taught in various lsat course methods that the answer to a sufficient assumption question will include any new element in the the conclusion not mentioned in the premises or any elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion. But here all the elements were introduced it was just a matter of all them being connected.
-
- obobob
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 78
- Joined: January 21st, 2018
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
just a quick Q:
the conclusion is a correlational statement, so I wonder how it is possible to put that statement into the conditional statement.
Are these statements the same?
"The more history a person knows, the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes"
If "the more history a person knows, THEN "the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes"
the conclusion is a correlational statement, so I wonder how it is possible to put that statement into the conditional statement.
Are these statements the same?
"The more history a person knows, the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes"
If "the more history a person knows, THEN "the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes"
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
"the more X, the more Y" could be construed as a conditional, yes.
It's a very strong statement, because it means "In every case, adding more X results in more Y."
So you could write it as a conditional by saying:
"If you learn more history, then you'll become less likely to see history as the working out of moral themes".
"If you are equally/more likely to see history as the working out of moral themes, then you didn't just learn more history"
It's a very strong statement, because it means "In every case, adding more X results in more Y."
So you could write it as a conditional by saying:
"If you learn more history, then you'll become less likely to see history as the working out of moral themes".
"If you are equally/more likely to see history as the working out of moral themes, then you didn't just learn more history"
-
- SabrinaM590
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 8
- Joined: April 10th, 2020
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
I chose the correct answer choice because I pin-pointed the jump, but I am unable to insert a.c (B) in the equation so as to seamlessly connect this premise/assumption to the conclusion.
Please note that I intentionally put them as conditionals as an attempt to clarify the problem.
P1: Moral Themes --> Clear & Unamb. Moral Beliefs
A --> B
(CP: ~B --> ~A)
P2: More knowledge in history --> Less Moral Judgment
C --> ~D
(CP: D --> ~C)
CONCL: More knowledge in history --> Less Moral Themes
C --> ~A
(CP: A --> ~C)
A.C (B): Less Moral Judgment --> Less Clear & Unamb. Moral Beliefs
~D --> ~C
(CP: C --> D)
So, how does (B) help link the conclusion: C --> ~A?
(@ohthatpatrick where you at?!?!? Or anyone else who is willing
)
Please note that I intentionally put them as conditionals as an attempt to clarify the problem.
P1: Moral Themes --> Clear & Unamb. Moral Beliefs
A --> B
(CP: ~B --> ~A)
P2: More knowledge in history --> Less Moral Judgment
C --> ~D
(CP: D --> ~C)
CONCL: More knowledge in history --> Less Moral Themes
C --> ~A
(CP: A --> ~C)
A.C (B): Less Moral Judgment --> Less Clear & Unamb. Moral Beliefs
~D --> ~C
(CP: C --> D)
So, how does (B) help link the conclusion: C --> ~A?
(@ohthatpatrick where you at?!?!? Or anyone else who is willing
)-
- SabrinaM590
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 8
- Joined: April 10th, 2020
Re: Q24 - Historian: It is unlikely
SabrinaM590 Wrote:I chose the correct answer choice because I pin-pointed the jump, but I am unable to insert a.c (B) in the equation so as to seamlessly connect this premise/assumption to the conclusion.
Please note that I intentionally put them as conditionals as an attempt to clarify the problem.
P1: Moral Themes --> Clear & Unamb. Moral Beliefs
A --> B
(CP: ~B --> ~A)
P2: More knowledge in history --> Less Moral Judgment
C --> ~D
(CP: D --> ~C)
CONCL: More knowledge in history --> Less Moral Themes
C --> ~A
(CP: A --> ~C)
A.C (B): Less Moral Judgment --> Less Clear & Unamb. Moral Beliefs
~D --> ~C
(CP: C --> D)
So, how does (B) help link the conclusion: C --> ~A?
(@ohthatpatrick where you at?!?!? Or anyone else who is willing
I think I got it:
A --> B --> D --> ~C
13 posts Page 1 of 1