Q25 - Wealth is not a good thing

[aseel.barghuthi]

Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth if often harmful to people.

I think what threw me off about this was was the "often" in the last premise in the stimulus; I incorrectly selected AC D about Sarah's dog not being a dachshund. The correct answer is A and yet does not have parallel transitive properties (it says no one in the chess club loves to golf which, if I am not mistaken, is diagrammed: CC--> NOT LOVE GOLF), whereas D includes "most dachshunds hunt poorly", so D most NOT HUNT WELL which I paralleled with WEALTH MOST HARMFUL.

I am somewhat confused by this and hoping to get some more clarity.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I completely agree with your assessment that the words in answer choice (D) seem to line up better. Here's a couple of issues.

1. "Most" and "often" are not the same. Most = a majority of the time, whereas Often = sometimes.
2. The stimulus is valid. It's a good argument. However, answer choice (D) is not a valid argument and in order to parallel, if the stimulus is valid, then the correct answer choice must be valid.

W --> CH
GT --> ~CH
=======
W --> ~GT

(Formal Notation Key: W = wealth, GT = good thing, CH = cause harm)

I know that the above notation is simplified, but the key to the stimulus being valid and the above diagram working is that the argument states that "good things cause no harm AT ALL." So, if something sometimes caused harm, it could not be a good thing.

(A) matches the reasoning of the stimulus and is a valid argument.

CC --> ~LG
A --> LG
========
A --> ~CC

(Formal Notation Key: CC = chess club, LG = loves golf, A = Alex)

This argument relies on a contrapositive of one of the premises, making this argument even better, as the stimulus also relied on contrapositive.

(B) is not a valid argument. It assumes that if one is happy, then one is content and this argument does not rely on a contrapositive.
(C) goes wrong when it says "Although the economy MIGHT improve." This argument simply states that a potential positive impact of industrial growth is not enough to overcome the associated negative impacts.
(D) is the most tempting of the incorrect answers. But does not match the most basic element - whether or not the argument is valid. Even though the rest of the elements seem to line up effectively.
(E) discusses the norm under certain circumstances. The stimulus has a conclusion that is grounded in an absolute claim. That cannot be said for answer choice (E). The conclusion is that we would have expected something different - not the same.


I hope this helps clear things up! Let me know if you'd like me to spend some more time with answer choice (D). In class, this question is one that comes up very frequently. It's not just about matching the apparent structure but also the validity of the argument...

[tamwaiman]

Hi mshermsn

According to your statement "1. "Most" and "often" are not the same. Most = a majority of the time, whereas Often = sometimes."

Does it make sense to translate "A is often B" into the logic form "A-->B" ?

Thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I know the statement doesn't say this but I think it will help you to get a sense for the logic underlying the relationship and how sometimes we can't slavishly follow the rules we establish for notating conditional relationships.

How would we notate

All wealth is sometimes harmful.

We would simply focus on the all and ignore the sometimes. We wouldn't say that some wealth is harmful, but rather that all wealth is harmful.

If wealth is often harmful to people, that would deny the necessary condition earlier stated in the relationship, good things cause no harm at all.

If good things cause no harm at all, and wealth is often harmful, we could apply contrapositive reasoning and establish that wealth is not a good thing.

I know I'm taking liberties with the formal notation, but it makes it easier to see. Does that help?

Generally though, A is often B should be diagrammed

A some B

[leweeg]

Should the stimulus conclusion be: Wealth is sometimes not a good thing given the premise uses "often" and this is more like "some".

Also I did not follow why D is invalid isn't the logic
SD->HW
D->~HW (taking the contra should this not work)
--------
SD->~D

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I agree that "often" is closer to "some." But we should be careful because the argument says that good things cause "no harm at all." Thus, since wealth is sometimes harmful, we can infer by contrapositive that wealth is not a good thing. If we put this one into notation using quantified logic we get

GT ---> ~CH
W some CH
-------------
W ----> ~GT

This doesn't work!

We cannot establish the strength of the conclusion above with the evidence provided. The evidence used in the above example would only establish that some wealth is not good. But the conclusion is about all wealth. The argument can get away with this shift since it qualifies it's evidence that good things cause "no harm at all." So if something ever causes harm, even only sometimes, then it's not a good thing.

We can use the Validity Test to eliminate answer choice (D) since it's not a valid argument. Answer choice (D) doesn't have such language in it similar to the stimulus, and as such would reflect a flawed argument when you put it into conditional notation.

D most ~HW
HW
---------------
~D

Rather than concluding that Sarah's dog is not a dachshund, the argument should have said that it is unlikely that Sarah's dog is a dachshund.

Does that answer your question?

[Raiderblue17]

OK I need help, first of all, I'd like to say this question is of the POOREST Validity.

Yes we know the argument is valid, so by default D is wrong.

B is just plain wrong,

E is just plain wrong

But C being wrong because of 'economy improving'? BIG DEAL. The argument is based around this one principle:

'GOOD THINGS DONT HARM, AT ALL.' So C says that polluiton is unberable... is that harming? Im not sure exactly... but if it does, it DOESNT MATTER about economy improving.

A is symbolically congruent, so i have to ASSUME, which is against LSAT protocol that unberable is not harming...

WTF man?

[irini101]

Hi mshermn, so A is a correct but not perfect answer to the question?

All A concerns are "none" and "all" but the stimulus contains "often", I guess the reason why A is correct is the other 4 contains more obvious flaw/invalid reasoning？

But during preptest how could we avoid preferring the very tempting wrong answer over the right answer? As the right answer in this question is a little bit repelling but the contender seems to fit quite well at the first glance.

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure answer choice (A) is not an exact match of every element in the reasoning structure of the stimulus. But if you had to describe the reasoning structure in the stimulus, the method of reasoning would definitely be described as a contrapositive. Answer choice (A) also reflects a contrapositive.

Take for example the following two examples.

1.
F ---> G
~G
-----------
~F

(F ---> H) ---> (G ---> L)
G some ~L
--------------------
F some ~H

Both of which use a contrapositive, though the second one clearly has a bunch of other elements embedded in its reasoning.

So while answer choice isn't an exact match, it's definitely the most similar to the stimulus. Does that answer your question?

[jasonshaffer0]

So in the stimulus it's (all) wealth is often... they are describing a characteristic of all wealth. Whereas in choice D (which I chose) it is MOST dachshunds hunt poorly, which means they are describing a characteristic of a majority, but not all dachshunds. In which case we the conclusion does not follow logically.

So would the takeaway be that when the LSAT says "X is...", the "all" is implied when talking about something abstract like wealth? I guess we would asssume there can only be one "wealth".