Q24 - Professor: A person who can

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Procedure

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Meaningful freedom can't be measured simply by # of choices available; the variety matters too.
Evidence: A person who can select 50 different types of cola has less freedom that someone who can choose between 5 diverse drinks.

Any prephrase?
Procedure questions usually want us to describe THE WAY in which premises were combined to reach the conclusion or to CHARACTERIZE THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE USED. In this case, there's only one premise, and it's a little thought experiment, a hypothetical situation meant to highlight the distinction made in the conclusion.

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
A) The author's conclusion could fairly be called a general principle: "freedom can't be measured purely in number of choices". The premise could fairly be called an example, even though it's hypothetical. It shows how "more choices does not equate with more freedom".

B) The conclusion is GENERAL, not particular. This is more or less backwards from the real argument, which drew a general principle on the basis of a particular case.

C) The cola hypothetical isn't an analogy. Analogies are parallel cases. "Extra innings are to baseball what overtime is to basketball". You can't relate a specific case to a general principle and call it an analogy. You can't say "Extra innings are to baseball what [events sometimes go longer than their designated time limit]."

D) This describes the Part to Whole flaw. I'm not sure how this answer choice got here. Get out of here, answer choice! You're in the wrong question!

E) This says that the premise is a MORE GENERAL principle than the conclusion. No way. The conclusion is more general than the premise.

Takeaway/Pattern: The (A) vs. (C) split is a rough test of vocab. Their only meaningful difference is "example" vs. "analogy". When a general principle gets dressed up in specific clothing, we call that an example of the principle, not an analogy to the principle. Analogies are parallel specific cases.

#officialexplanation

[wangyitu3712]

Could you please explain why "C" is incorrect, Though "A" is the correct choice?

[aileenann]

I sure can try.

First, why C is incorrect. I'd say C is not the answer because it does not describe the argument. In particular there is *no* analogy. At no point does the professor say that X is *like* Y. Without this word "like" - or something similar to that word - you don't have an analogy.

That's why A is dead on - we get an example of one kind of choice. The professor isn't saying his subject is like such a choice. He is saying this is one example, presumably of many, about which he generalizes in saying the number of options does not accurately measure meaningful freedom.

I have the sense that you might have thought example and analogy go hand in hand. In fact, they are quite different. Let me give you an example (ha ha, no pun intended).

An example of a law student doing a good and lawyerly thing is practicing writing a brief for a moot court case.

This is an EXAMPLE because it is one thing that a student would actually do, among many possibilities.

An analogy to what a law student does when crafting a brief is a very careful surgery.

This is an ANALOGY. It is not an example because a law student does not actually do this, but the care and attention to detail she exercises is quite similar to a surgery.

I am sorry if this is going a bit above and beyond what you asked, but keep in mind that we write this blogs for lots of folks and not usually only the person who asks the question That said I do hope this helps. If this is not clear, or not a very satisfying answer, please follow up and I'll be glad to extend this conversation

[lisahollchang]

Thanks this IS really helpful and I'm glad I got this one wrong because it goes to show that one needs to be clear on the difference between an example and an analogy. I answered C for this one because the example had the "feeling" of an analogy - it didn't really seem to be a "real situation." But you're right - an analogy would have to hold a more direct comparison.

[aileenann]

That's so great to hear. I'm glad you see how helpful it is to go back and analyze errors to get a bigger picture of how you're doing and how you can improve.

[bigtree65]

Yea I also got this one wrong and am very happy I did.
You're explanation made it much more likely that I won't confuse an analogy with an example again.

Thank you

[porsupuesto3798]

Could someone explain why (B) is incorrect? I eliminate it for the sake that I think the case is not based on the general principle but rather the general principle is based on the case. I would like to confirm my explanation. Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

I agree with your assessment.

[elanaminkoff]

i saw in a different forum where an MLSAT instructor stated that there is not really a major difference between analogy and example, and that she wouldn't expect to see an lsat question that hinged on this differentiation (since there is not really one). Can someone please clarify this for me, since i think that is a huge (if not only) difference in this question. At least between A and c, THE 2 choices I was debating between...

These are my thoughts:
I chose the correct answer, but with little confidence. it starts with an example and then a general principle is given, but it seems like the "general principle" serves as the conclusion in the argument as well, which then leaves just the analogy vs. example issue to deal with.

hopefully someone can help clear this up for me.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with you that (A) vs. (C) comes down to example vs. analogy.

I think I'd disagree that "example" and "analogy" can be used interchangeably.

An example has to be a subset of the actual topic / general claim being discussed. It needs to attach some specific values to the general words being used.

If I generalize that "babies like fruit", then an example needs to include a baby enjoying a specific type of fruit. "My one year old niece likes kiwi".

(note: as a previous poster wondered, do "examples" need to be actual? No, you can have a hypothetical example. Being hypothetical does NOT make it an analogy)

Analogies, by contrast, are normally two different sets of specifics, two different topics. What relates them is some generalized idea.

So in Aileen's previous example (of an analogy ... jeez, we keep talking ourselves in circles ) she analogized writing a brief to doing surgery.

Those are two completely different topics: legal writing vs. medical surgery?

How are THOSE the same?

An analogy is made when a general idea forms a conceptual bridge between the two distinct, specific topics.

Oh, they're similar because "both of them involve intense concentration and fine attention to detail".

When you make an analogy (especially on LSAT), there is usually connector language that you can point to that justifies the use of "analogy".

this would be stuff like

similarly
likewise
that would be like saying
you might as well argue that

In order for (C) to be correct, the conclusion would have to sound like "It is clear, then, that someone picking from 20 candidates, all of whom support the same economic policy of the previous administration are less free than someone picking from 3 candidates who all have very distinct economic policy ideas."

Hope this helps.

== other answers ==

(B) The conclusion is not about a particular case. It is a general principle, and the evidence (the basis) was a particular case.

(D) This describes a PART to WHOLE argument. Not sure how this could match the actual argument. I think LSAT just knows that WE know that THEY know that WE know that Part to Whole is a thing and thought we might pick it.

(E) It's pretty dubious to call this premise a general principle, but even worse, this answer choice says that the premise was a MORE general principle than the conclusion. That would definitely be backwards.

[513852276]

The analogy given here may still be a "example", since policy freedom is still a subset of freedom in general. A analogy may be "....just as the beauty of garden is not simply measured by the quantities of plants but also by the variety of plants it includes.

I agree with you that (A) vs. (C) comes down to example vs. analogy.

I think I'd disagree that "example" and "analogy" can be used interchangeably.

An example has to be a subset of the actual topic / general claim being discussed. It needs to attach some specific values to the general words being used.

If I generalize that "babies like fruit", then an example needs to include a baby enjoying a specific type of fruit. "My one year old niece likes kiwi".

(note: as a previous poster wondered, do "examples" need to be actual? No, you can have a hypothetical example. Being hypothetical does NOT make it an analogy)

Analogies, by contrast, are normally two different sets of specifics, two different topics. What relates them is some generalized idea.

So in Aileen's previous example (of an analogy ... jeez, we keep talking ourselves in circles ) she analogized writing a brief to doing surgery.

Those are two completely different topics: legal writing vs. medical surgery?

How are THOSE the same?

An analogy is made when a general idea forms a conceptual bridge between the two distinct, specific topics.

Oh, they're similar because "both of them involve intense concentration and fine attention to detail".

When you make an analogy (especially on LSAT), there is usually connector language that you can point to that justifies the use of "analogy".

this would be stuff like

similarly
likewise
that would be like saying
you might as well argue that

In order for (C) to be correct, the conclusion would have to sound like "It is clear, then, that someone picking from 20 candidates, all of whom support the same economic policy of the previous administration are less free than someone picking from 3 candidates who all have very distinct economic policy ideas."

Hope this helps.

== other answers ==

(B) The conclusion is not about a particular case. It is a general principle, and the evidence (the basis) was a particular case.

(D) This describes a PART to WHOLE argument. Not sure how this could match the actual argument. I think LSAT just knows that WE know that THEY know that WE know that Part to Whole is a thing and thought we might pick it.

(E) It's pretty dubious to call this premise a general principle, but even worse, this answer choice says that the premise was a MORE general principle than the conclusion. That would definitely be backwards.

[jrnlsn.nelson]

Can anyone explain why (B) is not the correct answer? I've taken 30+ PTs and I'm utterly bewildered by this one.

Here's my understanding of the passage:

The second sentence:

"It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available; the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor"

is the conclusion. We know this is the conclusion based on the conclusion indicator "then."

Let's look at answer choice (B):

"The professor's argument proceeds by drawing a conclusion about a particular case on the basis of a general principle."

I want to focus on the part: "drawing a conclusion about a particular case"

Isn't the Professor clearly doing this? The "particular case" is clearly the first sentence:

"A person who can select a beverage from among 50 varieties of cola is less free than one who has only these 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple, juice, milk, and water."

And the Professor is clearly "drawing a conclusion" because the second sentence says "It is clear, then" which can reasonably be rephrased as "Thus, on the basis of this particular case" -- can it not?

The second sentence (i.e. the conclusion) looks like this with my interpretation added:

"Thus, on the basis of this particular case, meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available; the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor"

Now, let's look at answer choice (B) again: "The professor's argument proceeds by drawing a conclusion about a particular case on the basis of a general principle."

Let's omit the portion "about a particular case" and see what the answer looks like: "The professor's argument proceeds by drawing a conclusion on the basis of a general principle."

Now let's look at the conclusion again: "It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available; the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor"

This portion:

"It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available"

can reasonably considered the conclusion and this portion:

"the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor"

can reasonably considered the "general principle." Right?


Can someone please tell me how this line of reasoning is incorrect? Thanks.

[gaheexlee]

Can anyone explain why (B) is not the correct answer? I've taken 30+ PTs and I'm utterly bewildered by this one.

I think I almost understand what your line of reasoning is so I'll try to see if I can help.

First, the basics: method of reasoning questions like this one essentially asks what the author does in the premise to get to the conclusion. So we're just categorizing 1) the premise, and 2) the conclusion. By categorizing, I mean we want to see if the author uses a comparison, or rules out an alternative, or uses statistical support, etc.

Since we must categorize our premise and conclusion, it's necessary to first identify the said components. The premise is the first sentence. The conclusion is the second sentence.

Broadly speaking, what is the premise? It gives an example of something. And broadly speaking, the conclusion is a general principle of something. Thus, (A).

You fused the language presented in (B) with the language in the stimulus to form a new answer. When (B) says "drawing a conclusion about a particular case," the particular case is referring not to the first sentence, but to the 2nd about freedom in general. After all, we've already identified the conclusion as being the 2nd sentence. Your interpretation of the first part of (B) mislabeled the stimulus' premise as a conclusion.

But let's just assume that when (B) says "drawing a conclusion about a particular case," the particular case in fact refers to the first sentence as you said. If we assume this interpretation, then the 2nd part of (B) refers to how the "general principle" in the 2nd sentence of the stimulus supports and gives the basis to the 1st. But does the 2nd sentence really support the 1st? Or does the 1st support the 2nd? I think it's clear, as you also pointed out, that the 1st supports the 2nd since the words "it is clear" signals our conclusion.

I hope that wasn't too convoluted... tl;dr, don't fuse stimulus/answer choice words together! And remind yourself what supports what. Separate the premise and conclusion, categorize them and see which answer choices line up with your pre-phrase.

[jrnlsn.nelson]

Thanks a ton for the post gaheexlee -- your explanation helps.

This helped make sense of things:

But does the 2nd sentence really support the 1st? Or does the 1st support the 2nd? I think it's clear, as you also pointed out, that the 1st supports the 2nd since the words "it is clear" signals our conclusion.

I think making this connection helps you rule out (B) and favor (A).


You did lose me during these sentences:

You fused the language presented in (B) with the language in the stimulus to form a new answer. When (B) says "drawing a conclusion about a particular case," the particular case is referring not to the first sentence, but to the 2nd about freedom in general. After all, we've already identified the conclusion as being the 2nd sentence. Your interpretation of the first part of (B) mislabeled the stimulus' premise as a conclusion.

I'm not sure how this:

"After all, we've already identified the conclusion as being the 2nd sentence. Your interpretation of the first part of (B) mislabeled the stimulus' premise as a conclusion."

relates to the previous two sentences. I must be missing some implied deduction.

Thanks again!

[Jkpt2016]

Hi,

I'm pretty far along in my studies at this point and can understand why most of my wrong answers are wrong but I am having a hard time reconciling the definitions of examples vs analogies in this question vs question 19.2.11

Any help with clarification on this issue would be much appreciated, thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

“examples” are on a lower hierarchical level than the general claim they’re illustrating.

General claim: “animals hate feeling pain”

examples: “Lions hate it when you yank their manes.” “Dogs hate it when you yank their ears. “Humans hate it when you punch their noses.”

analogies: “just as lions hate it when you yank on their manes, so too would humans hate it if you punched their noses.”

To be an example, you should be one specific set of details, illustrating a general claim.

To make an analogy, you need TWO specific sets of details, both of which are supposed to embody the same general claim/logic/assessment.

(50 varieties of soda vs. 5 different types of beverages … is a specific set of details illustrating the general claim that "freedom can't be measured merely by the number of choices")

(animals are getting surgery and humans are getting surgery ... two specific sets of details, both of which are supposed to connect with the general claim of "There should be a pain protocol")