Q4 - For generations, magnificent racehorses

[jamiejames]

I narrowed this down to A and B, but the reason I didn't choose B was because it talked about "other areas," and although it's relevant, I didn't see how it weakened it the most, because what does it matter what occurred in "other places" when the number of other places could only be two or so? I figured A a better choice because, if it were true, the kids would still be able to develop good character despite the horse track.

[timmydoeslsat]

I narrowed this down to A and B, but the reason I didn't choose B was because it talked about "other areas," and although it's relevant, I didn't see how it weakened it the most, because what does it matter what occurred in "other places" when the number of other places could only be two or so? I figured A a better choice because, if it were true, the kids would still be able to develop good character despite the horse track.

Answer choice B is attacking the statement of:

Children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character.

This is really the only piece of evidence to conclude that the racetrack should not be built if you favor developing good character in kids over gambling on horses.

Answer choice B is showing us that this conditional is not true. That you can have cases where kids do develop good character in that environment.

[jamiejames]

I narrowed this down to A and B, but the reason I didn't choose B was because it talked about "other areas," and although it's relevant, I didn't see how it weakened it the most, because what does it matter what occurred in "other places" when the number of other places could only be two or so? I figured A a better choice because, if it were true, the kids would still be able to develop good character despite the horse track.

Answer choice B is attacking the statement of:

Children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character.

This is really the only piece of evidence to conclude that the racetrack should not be built if you favor developing good character in kids over gambling on horses.

Answer choice B is showing us that this conditional is not true. That you can have cases where kids do develop good character in that environment.

thank you

[jgallorealestate]

I assumed that "A" was wrong because if we build the racetrack then the character that is supposed to be developed in children won't happen.

The passage says that children who get something for nothing won't develop good character. Therefore, in answer choice "A" the hypothetical of good character developing early in children won't ever get a chance to take place if they grow up in an environment where they get something for nothing. So the hypothetical doesn't matter.

[sukim764]

I assumed that "A" was wrong because if we build the racetrack then the character that is supposed to be developed in children won't happen.

The passage says that children who get something for nothing won't develop good character. Therefore, in answer choice "A" the hypothetical of good character developing early in children won't ever get a chance to take place if they grow up in an environment where they get something for nothing. So the hypothetical doesn't matter.

I agree with you. Answer choice doesn't address the premise of the argument, which is about children being RAISED in questionable places that determine the likelihood of good character. Good explanation~

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great discussion on this one so far!

We're asked to weaken L.E.'s argument that because we want children to grow up with good character, we should vote against allowing a racetrack in the area.

There's a clear assumption being made here that if we permit a racetrack we will not have children with good character. If we attack an assumption of an argument we undermine the argument's reasoning - answer choice (B) attacks the argument's assumption.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is irrelevant. The argument is about developing good character in children. Whether that character then persists in different environments would not affect the argument.
(C) is irrelevant as it fails to address whether or not children would develop good character. If we assume that gambling is evidence of bad character, then we might go even further and suggest that this answer choice supports the argument.
(D) is irrelevant as it fails to address whether or not children would develop good character.
(E) might be tempting if we mistook the argument for concluding that the racetrack would not be approved. But instead it is about whether it should be approved.

[keonheecho]

Can someone clarify how D is irrelevant? To me it seems like gambling does relate to bad character, because the stimulus says that "Gambling is wrong, and children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character". Doesn't this imply that gambling can inhibit good character?

[Jack_Dawkins]

Can someone clarify how D is irrelevant? To me it seems like gambling does relate to bad character, because the stimulus says that "Gambling is wrong, and children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character". Doesn't this imply that gambling can inhibit good character?

I picked (D) too, but now I see that when (D) is put together with (B), obviously (B) is a better choice. The argument only talks about children raised around gambling atmosphere may not develop good character. The heart of the argument is "good character", but the stimulus never categorizes "not gambling" as part of "good character". So (D) includes a term shift. Personally, I don't think (D) is strong enough to weaken the argument, since "not necessarily" is quite weak, at least weaker than (B).

[jen_lines]

Can someone clarify how D is irrelevant? To me it seems like gambling does relate to bad character, because the stimulus says that "Gambling is wrong, and children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character". Doesn't this imply that gambling can inhibit good character?

I picked (D) too, but now I see that when (D) is put together with (B), obviously (B) is a better choice. The argument only talks about children raised around gambling atmosphere may not develop good character. The heart of the argument is "good character", but the stimulus never categorizes "not gambling" as part of "good character". So (D) includes a term shift. Personally, I don't think (D) is strong enough to weaken the argument, since "not necessarily" is quite weak, at least weaker than (B).

We need to use what is argument. They never mention parents who do not gamble.

[WendyQ765]

Does anyone think B only attacked the premise but not the relationship between premise and conclusion ?
I cannot find the gap in the argument.
Could anyone help me find the assumption in the argument?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think (B) attacks the premise, more or less, not the reasoning.

Now and then (like 5 times or so ever), a correct weaken answer seems to just go against a premise. Whenever that has happened, the premise that the correct answer attacked was always a prediction / extreme judgment / opinion, never a quantifiable fact.

So don't expect that kind of answer, but be receptive to it. LSAT teachers and books like to say, "You can't fight the premise", but that's not a rule LSAT ever created.

What they mean is "You shouldn't expect to see an answer that will fight the premise".

If there's a gap in this argument, I'd say it's linking up
"gambling is offered in our area" and "our area will have an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing".

If you're raised in atmosphere where goal is something for nothing --> don't develop good character.
Thus,
if you want kids to develop good character --> don't let the racetrack be built.

This assumes that "if the racetrack is built / if gambling is offered, it will eventually lead to an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing".

You could think of (B) as interfering with that assumption. If the author's rule is true (that being raised in a something 4 nothing atmosphere precludes good character), then apparently in these other areas of gambling, they are NOT ending up with a something 4 nothing atmosphere.

Hope this helps.