Q24 - Monica: The sculpture commissioned for

[karenlinn18]

This question threw me for a loop...can you please explain how E is correct on both questions?? I missed both of them

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The first q asks us to identify the disagreement --

For these types of q's, the key is to stay close to the text.

Here's a simple analogous situation.

Dan: It's hot! Let's go to the beach!

Noah: It's not that hot.

The trap answer will say that they both disagree about whether to go to the beach or not. Notice Noah never actually discusses that.

The correct answer will point, in some way, to the fact that they disagree about how hot it is.

The best way to arrive at the right answer to a question like this is to eliminate wrong answers that stray from the text (by discussing something the people don't actually disagree about).

(A) is not a proven point of disagreement -- in fact, hector says specifically that monica may be right (agrees!) about popularity's relationship to merit. Additionally, what she says is there is no connection between public opinion and artistic merit, which is the opposite of what this answer states.

(B) Neither argument makes any claim about a direct link between artistic merit and benefit to public, so we know for sure the two authors can't disagree about this.

(C) Neither argument makes the claim that there is only one possible reason an artwork should be removed, and so we know the authors can't disagree about this.

(D) Again, we've been given no direct connection between artistic merit and benefit to the public, so we know the authors do not disagree about this.

So, that leaves us with (E) -- can we prove the authors disagree about (E)? Yes. Monica says it ought not be removed, and the main consideration is that the public doesn't understand artistic merit. Hector says in making that decision, something else is important -- public opinion. (E) is the only answer they disagree about, and therefore (E) is correct.

#25 has to do with gaps within Hector's argument. Hector makes his claim based on reasoning through whether the work WILL benefit the public, but then goes on to discuss whether the public will FEEL benefit. Being of benefit, and having others feel that you are of benefit, are two subtly but significantly different ideas.

Simple example:

Ted feels he is handsome.
Therefore, Ted must be handsome!

We need an answer choices that bridges the gap between people feeling or not feeling it is of benefit, and it actually being or not being of benefit. (E) addresses this gap, and is therefore correct.

Hope that helps!

[theaether]

What about B for #25? If Monica's assessment of the public opinion is inaccurate, let's say reversed, then Hector's argument would be something like: Thus, if public opinion of this sculpture is what you say (that the people love it), then it certainly ought to be removed.

Is that not also a gap?

[geverett]

Tricky part about 25 is the gap is between two premises and not between the premise and the conclusion. Tricky.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

One thing you may want to pay attention to is the wording of the question -- "...depends on the assumption..."

Does Hector's argument depend on Monica's statement being accurate?

No, in fact, his conclusion is a conditional one -- "if public opinion is what you say, then (the art) certainly ought to be removed."

If her statement was not accurate, it wouldn't impact his conclusion.

I know that can be a bit of a tongue-twister for the mind, but here's an analogous scenario.

Imagine I make the point, "If it rains, I will wear a coat."

Then, it turns out not to rain.

Is my statement proven false or wrong in any way? No. My statement does not depend on there being rain at that moment.

Similarly, Hector's points do not require that Monica is indeed accurate.

Hope that is helpful! Please follow up if you'd like to continue the discussion.

[gilad.bendheim]

Hi Mike -

I'm having trouble with your explanation, mostly because I had the exact same thought process on a similar question (PT 36 sec 1 q 18), which similarly asked an 'assumed' question, also included the caveat in the stimulas of 'if the evidence is correct' but whose correct answer was analogous to choice (B) here, namely that it said that the assumption must be that the claim cited as evidence was correct. Based on that test, I chose the same answer here, but in this case I was wrong. It seems to me that the LSAT does NOT always think that qualifying a claim with an 'if it can be trusted' is enough to make the claim true regardless of the validity of the evidence itself.

What am I missing here?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Hi Gilad,

Great eye, and great question.

There are a couple o important differences between the two questions --

Sculpture and art, this question, is a necessary assumption question, and the other one you mention is a sufficient assumption question. This doesn't have a direct impact on the issue I think you are asking about, but it's really important to understand the difference between these two types of questions (and to have different mindsets for them) so keep that in mind.

Secondly, notice that the conclusion of 36/2/18 is "Moderate exercise lowers the risk of blockage of the arteries due to blood clots."

The conclusion is not conditional. The conclusion is absolute. It's the premises that are conditional. We can think of the argument as saying:

Premises: If A, then B. If B, then C. If C, then D.

Conclusion: D will definitely happen.

If we take the premises to be true, what will guarantee that D will definitely happen? If A is true.

Again, the above is a simple explanation of what is happening in the other problem. If the conclusion for that other problem had also been a conditional, (D) would not be the correct answer for that problem.

I hope that's helpful! Please follow up if it you would like to discuss further.

[513852276]

I choose E by eliminating wrong answers. But would it possible to have two central considerations? Monica suggests "remove---> little artistic merits" and Hector suggests either " little benefits to public---> remove". i.e. What hector suggests is that "(sufficient level of) benefits to public" is a necessary condition for "not remove", but it may not be the only necessary condition. Hector would believe "artistic merit and benefits to public are all central considerations, and a lack of either of them will cause sculpture to be removed." Since question stems are not saying "most likely to disagree" but "commit them to disagree", a rather absolute term, I felt it's better to ask this nuanced question. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

It's a great, tough, nuanced question you're asking.

I think ultimately it's not a very bulletproof question for the reasons you stated. "Commit them to disagreeing" should allow us to really explicitly define a disagreement, and (E) really should fall under a "most likely disagree" type umbrella.

Because (E) says "A central consideration", not "THE central consideration", it allows for the possibility of multiple central considerations.

And you're right. Hector might believe the central considerations are "sufficient artistic merit and sufficient public benefit". If so, he could believe that artistic merit IS a central consideration, but still argue in favor of removing the sculpture based on its failing to achieve sufficient public benefit.

You're gonna have to just live with this as an imperfect question that STILL has a "best" answer, even if the answer is not 100%.

What LSAT thought they had to justify (E) was Hector's move from sentence 1 to sentence 2:
"You may be right about X. However, we should really talk about Y."

They're thinking that switching in such a way indicates that X was not a central consideration.

I think you came up with a cogent loophole around that.

They could have easily fixed (E) and made it bulletproof by changing "a central consideration" to "the central consideration".

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Reasoning: The public's unpopular view of the sculpture says nothing about it's artistic merit.
Monica: We have no reason to remove the sculpture. (Presumably because we've been given no evidence that suggests that the sculpture lacks any artistic merit)
Hector: I disagree, the have a reason to remove the sculpture
Reasoning: Although the public's view of the sculpture says nothing about it's artistic merit, sculpture's in public spaces should benefit the public. Popular opinion is the only way of determining what the public feels is to its benefit and as you said the public disapproves of the sculpture.

(A) Both disagree with this, therefore they are in agreement in this regard. Eliminate.
(B) No, neither makes this claim. Monica discusses artistic merit but not as to how it benefits the public. Hector discusses artistic merit only when conceding the veracity of Monica's premise. However he never discusses artistic merit as to it relates to the public benefit, rather he discusses popular opinion in regards to public benefit, i.e., if it's not popular, it won't benefit the public and vice versa.
(C) This is the reverse of Hector's argument. Hector says If the balance of public opinion is against the sculpture than we have reason to remove it. This is saying that If we have reason to remove the sculpture than it's because the balance of public is against it, which is not necessarily true, this is just affirming the necessary condition of Hector's argument which is an invalid argument form.
(D) Neither discusses this. Monica discusses artistic merit but not as to how it benefits the public. Hector discusses public benefit but not as to how it relates to artistic merit.
(E) Correct. Hector believes that the artistic merit should not be a consideration as to whether the sculpture stays, whereas Monica argues that artistic merit should be.