Q25 - Counselor: Those who believe

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Only harsh criticism causes someone to change.
Evidence: Change requires a motive, and harsh/unpleasant criticism provides a motive.

Answer Anticipation:
If we recognize the conditional trigger word "only", then we could suspect that a Conditional Logic might be happening.

The author's conclusion is that "If the criticism caused change, it had to be harsh criticism".
The evidence says that "if it caused change, then it must have provided a motive."
The author is therefore assuming "if it provided a motive, it must have been harsh criticism".

The actual premise we got was "if it's harsh criticism, it provides a motive." So it IS possible to describe this argument as a Conditional Logic flaw. The author would need a link that says "if provides motive, then harsh." The author provided a link that says "if harsh, then provides motive". When an author is using a conditional idea backwards, that's the Conditional Logic Flaw (aka, Necessary vs. Sufficient).

The other way to approach this is our typical approach for Flaw questions: argue the anti-conclusion. The author says that "ONLY harsh criticism causes people to change", so we would need to argue that "OTHER types of criticism could also cause people to change". We're told that causing someone to change requires that our criticism provides a motive. Could other types of criticism provide a motive? Sure! Why couldn't gentle, loving, constructive criticism still supply people with a motive for change? We could object to the author by saying, "Hey -- just because harsh criticism provides a motive doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing that provides a motive."

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! Any time we see nec vs. suff language, we can start by asking ourselves, "Was there conditional logic in the evidence?" If the answer is "no", then get rid of the answer. Here, the answer is yes. We know that "Change --requires--> a motive", and we know that "harsh criticism ---> provides a motive". The author incorrectly tries to chain those together to get "change --requires--> harsh criticism". Conversationally, the author told us that harsh criticism WOULD provide a motive (is sufficient) but never told that other types of criticism WOULD NOT provide a motive. So why should the author leap to the idea that harsh criticism is necessary?

(B) Would this weaken? The conclusion is only about what type(s) of criticism can bring about change. Other goals are out of scope.

(C) Must she assume this? It's extreme -- EVERYONE motivated to change will actually change? Too strong. It would hurt the author's argument at all if at least one person motivated to change didn't actually change. It can only hurt the author's argument if some type of criticism other than harsh criticism is ever responsible for causing people to change.

(D) There really isn't any distinction being made about what the motive is for.

(E) The ol' Unproven vs. Untrue flaw. This argument has nothing to do with saying, "Since their evidence failed to prove X is true, X must be false."

Takeaway/Pattern: When you're doing a Flaw question, if you see conditional logic in the evidence ("requires"), you should be high on guard for the Conditional Logic flaw.

#officialexplanation

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello!

I correctly picked (A) by eliminating the rest, but wasn't 100% confident when I chose it, and so went back and tried to prove my answer, but am not sure how it works..

Here is what I was able to come up with (sorry if it is really confusing and hard to follow.. I just wanted to layout my framework of how I approached this problem and wanted to see where I went wrong with my logic):

1. change --> motive
2. criticism that is unpleasant provides us with a motive
3. harsh criticism is unpleasant, so it provides us with a motive (understood everything till here)
4. THEREFORE, harsh criticism (motive?) --> change

At first, I had "change --> harsh criticism" since the sentence says "ONLY harsh criticism will cause the person criticized to change" so when I thought of it in formulaic terms, "only" is a necessary indicator, so we would have: "change --> harsh criticism" but then that didn't sound quite right since there is the word "cause" -- so when I wrote "harsh criticism --cause--> change" that sounded more "right" since I interpreted that sentence to mean: it is only the harsh criticism that will cause the change and nothing else. But then when I said that sentence outloud to myself, it sounded like the other way around again: so that if we have change, then it MUST have been the harsh criticism and NOTHING else, right?? I think I am just confusing myself even more now. Now I actually think it should be:

4. THEREFORE, change --> harsh criticism

But that doesn't lead to (A).. since (A) means:

change --> motive
motive --> change

So my original #4 would have been the correct interpretation, but my second #4 seems like the right interpretation of the sentence. Ahhh, please help!!!

By the way, I was also really attracted to answer choice (B), because I thought that the counselor says that people should considering the following: "change requires a motive..." but why should we consider change? What if it's not something that we need to consider? But I eliminated it eventually because of the word "primary goal" since the argument never assumes that THAT is the "primary goal" -- any other thoughts on why (B) is wrong???

[noah]

Thanks for your thoughts on that, So. Tricky question if you think too much!

First, I'll approach this flaw question using everyday thinking:

The conclusion is that you need harsh criticism to have the criticized person change. Why?

Because hard criticism is unpleasant, and if criticism is unpleasant it provides a motive for change, which you need to have change.

If I were to debate this--which I would during an LSAT to reveal the gaps!--I'd say "sure, harsh criticism can work, but can't other things as well?" In other words, I see that harsh criticism works--is sufficient--but is it necessary for change? Couldn't something else provide the motive for change?

That's why (A) rings true.

(B) is out of scope - we don't care what is the primary goal of criticism. We're talking about whether criticism is the only way to get change.

(C) is tempting but the argument doesn't assume that everyone who is motivated to change will do so; it states that motivation is required (which means it's necessary, not sufficient as (C) suggests).

(D) is out of scope - avoiding?

(E) is tempting since it's fancy-sounding. However, the argument doesn't simply refute the argument to show it's false (in other words, show that the argument doesn't work) to prove the conclusion false. Instead, the argument goes ahead and attempts to prove that the opposite of the conclusion is true.

More formally - if you're into that kinky stuff:

Conclusion: change --> harsh crit.

Why? hard crit --> motive
change --> motive

The argument assumes that motive --> hard crit, which would allow this chain:

change --> motive --> hard crit., which would prove the conclusion. But, since we don't have "motive --> hard crit." we can't draw the conclusion from the given premises.

[chike_eze]

During full pt I didn't diagram and picked A by just thinking sufficient/necessary. On review, I worked my way to C because I got my diagram all twisted. Grrhhh.

[kaseyb002]

Thanks for your thoughts on that, So. Tricky question if you think too much!

First, I'll approach this flaw question using everyday thinking:

The conclusion is that you need harsh criticism to have the criticized person change. Why?

Because hard criticism is unpleasant, and if criticism is unpleasant it provides a motive for change, which you need to have change.

If I were to debate this--which I would during an LSAT to reveal the gaps!--I'd say "sure, harsh criticism can work, but can't other things as well?" In other words, I see that harsh criticism works--is sufficient--but is it necessary for change? Couldn't something else provide the motive for change?

That's why (A) rings true.

(B) is out of scope - we don't care what is the primary goal of criticism. We're talking about whether criticism is the only way to get change.

(C) is tempting but the argument doesn't assume that everyone who is motivated to change will do so; it states that motivation is required (which means it's necessary, not sufficient as (C) suggests).

(D) is out of scope - avoiding?

(E) is tempting since it's fancy-sounding. However, the argument doesn't simply refute the argument to show it's false (in other words, show that the argument doesn't work) to prove the conclusion false. Instead, the argument goes ahead and attempts to prove that the opposite of the conclusion is true.

More formally - if you're into that kinky stuff:

Conclusion: change --> harsh crit.

Why? hard crit --> motive
change --> motive

The argument assumes that motive --> hard crit, which would allow this chain:

change --> motive --> hard crit., which would prove the conclusion. But, since we don't have "motive --> hard crit." we can't draw the conclusion from the given premises.

Maybe I read your response wrong, but here's how I understood the argument.

Change --> Motive

Harsh criticism is one way you could provide that required component (motive).

Conclusion: Harsh criticism is the only way to cause a person to change.

So two things I see wrong here:
1) Like you mentioned, the arbitrary exclusion of other methods beyond harsh criticism that could provide the motive.
2) Confusing necessary for sufficient. Harsh criticism is not sufficient for causing change, it is just one way that can provide a necessary component for change. In fact, I don't think you could say harsh criticism is necessary nor sufficient.

Am I wrong?

[noah]

Maybe I read your response wrong, but here's how I understood the argument.

Change --> Motive

Harsh criticism is one way you could provide that required component (motive).

Conclusion: Harsh criticism is the only way to cause a person to change.

So two things I see wrong here:
1) Like you mentioned, the arbitrary exclusion of other methods beyond harsh criticism that could provide the motive.
2) Confusing necessary for sufficient. Harsh criticism is not sufficient for causing change, it is just one way that can provide a necessary component for change. In fact, I don't think you could say harsh criticism is necessary nor sufficient.

Am I wrong?

You're right - and we're seeing the question the same way more or less. You're focused on the fact that the motives don't cause change, but are necessary -- true. However, the necessary and sufficient mix-up here is all about whether harsh criticism (or "hard" as I seemed to have started saying) is necessary or sufficient for a motive for change, not for change itself.

By the way, the two things you see wrong are almost the same thing (except that the first is about a motive, and the second is about change). Whenever you're thinking "there could be other ways..." you're thinking about a confusion of necessary and sufficient.

[austindyoung]

EDIT

I had a confusing response to why (B) was incorrect earlier. Here is an easier one.

While I chose (A) and not (B), during times practice I still thought there were two flaws. Now, there can (and are at many times) multiple flaws or assumptions in arguments, but in the ACs only one will be listed as an correct option.

I chose (A) because it was an easy flaw to see (for me- don't worry if it wasn't for you) but I still kept wondering why this whole discussion of "change" was relevant when, as the stim begins, we are talking about "gentle" vs "harsh" criticism. The assumption must be that "change" is a significant part of the critical process- right?

Well, that's true if we put too much weight in what comes before the colon. As LSAT students we tend to be anal (heh..) but that pre-colon tidbit is really just background information (BI)

If we make it part of the CORE, instead of informing the Core- (B) becomes tempting. If we see it for the Introduction to the Argument that it is- then there is actually no shift going because we haven't gotten to the meat of the stim.

HTH

[erikwoodward10]

Maybe I read your response wrong, but here's how I understood the argument.

Change --> Motive

Harsh criticism is one way you could provide that required component (motive).

Conclusion: Harsh criticism is the only way to cause a person to change.

So two things I see wrong here:
1) Like you mentioned, the arbitrary exclusion of other methods beyond harsh criticism that could provide the motive.
2) Confusing necessary for sufficient. Harsh criticism is not sufficient for causing change, it is just one way that can provide a necessary component for change. In fact, I don't think you could say harsh criticism is necessary nor sufficient.

Am I wrong?

You're right - and we're seeing the question the same way more or less. You're focused on the fact that the motives don't cause change, but are necessary -- true. However, the necessary and sufficient mix-up here is all about whether harsh criticism (or "hard" as I seemed to have started saying) is necessary or sufficient for a motive for change, not for change itself.

By the way, the two things you see wrong are almost the same thing (except that the first is about a motive, and the second is about change). Whenever you're thinking "there could be other ways..." you're thinking about a confusion of necessary and sufficient.

I took a similar approach and it seemed to make sense. Here's what I said:

P: Change-->Motive
P: Unpleasant Crit-->Motive
P: Harsh Crit-->Unpleasant Crit
--
C: Harsh crit-->Change

Combining the second and third premises for the sake of clarity gives us:

P: Change--> Motive
P: Harsh Crit--> Unpleasant Crit--> Motive
--
C: Harsh crit--> Change

Well this is flawed because we can't actually get to the NC "Change" from the SC "Harsh Crit". There's just no linkage. We can, however, end at the NC "motive" (as seen by connecting premises 2 and 3, displayed above).

If it were possible to get to the NC "change", we would have to assume motive-->change.

This is exactly what answer choice A says: the argument assumes that something that is sufficient for a motive (read: change--we know this from premise 1) is necessary to provide a motive. In english, this means the argument assumes motive-->change.

Sorry if this was convoluted, spent a long time trying to make my argument clear. Is this valid reasoning? It gets me to the right answer but not how noah describes it.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work erikwoodward10!