Q4 - M: The Greek alphabet must

[lhermary]

Can someone explain why E is right?

Thanks

[gilad.bendheim]

In the stimulus, M is basically saying 'some person invented the Greek alphabet so that he could write down Homeric epics.' P comes along and points out that there could only be two reasons to write something down: (1) you don't already know it and/or (2) to transmit it to other people. But P says that according to M's statement, neither of these apply. Reason (1) cannot apply because by virtue of being able to write it down in the first place, the individual must have already known the Homeric poems, and therefore had no reason to write them down. And (2), if the individual created the Greek alphabet for the express purpose of transmitting it the poem, that appears to be self-defeating, because no one else knows the language and therefore it cannot be transmitted.

Answer choice (E) says that M's second critique [reason (2)] is invalid, because perhaps the individual planned to first teach others the Greek alphabet, and thereby transmit the newly-written Homeric epics.

Hope this makes sense!

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanation.

My only caveat is when you wrote:
P comes along and points out that there could only be two reasons to write something down: (1) you don't already know it and/or (2) to transmit it to other people.

I just want to caution that P didn't actually say those were the ONLY two reasons for why someone would write Homer's epics down. Instead, P ASSUMED that those were the only two reasons.

If I made this argument:
"Your decision to date Diane is crazy. What's the point of dating her? She's not pretty, and she's not rich."

... then I am assuming that the only justifications for dating someone are if he/she is pretty or rich.

We could see any number of potential correct answers that would attack this assumption, for instance

"presumes, without providing justification, that Diane's sense of humor does not make her worth dating"

"neglects to consider that someone might date Diane in order to retaliate at an ex-girlfriend"

or even

"fails to establish that two possible justifications for a certain action are the only potential justifications"

---
This is a really minor clarification for what was otherwise a solid explanation, but I wanted to highlight this common assumption.

Many LSAT authors list two things and act like they're the ONLY two things, without explicitly saying they are (and recognizing that assumption becomes key to answering the problem correctly).

Quick example: "Punching your boss in the face or wrecking your boss's car will get you fired. Eddie just got fired, and he's never punched anyone in the face. Therefore, Eddie must have wrecked his boss's car."

(what about all the other things you could do that might get you fired? the author is assuming the two he listed are the only two)

[goriano]

Great explanation.

My only caveat is when you wrote:
P comes along and points out that there could only be two reasons to write something down: (1) you don't already know it and/or (2) to transmit it to other people.

I just want to caution that P didn't actually say those were the ONLY two reasons for why someone would write Homer's epics down. Instead, P ASSUMED that those were the only two reasons.

If I made this argument:
"Your decision to date Diane is crazy. What's the point of dating her? She's not pretty, and she's not rich."

... then I am assuming that the only justifications for dating someone are if he/she is pretty or rich.

We could see any number of potential correct answers that would attack this assumption, for instance

"presumes, without providing justification, that Diane's sense of humor does not make her worth dating"

"neglects to consider that someone might date Diane in order to retaliate at an ex-girlfriend"

or even

"fails to establish that two possible justifications for a certain action are the only potential justifications"

---
This is a really minor clarification for what was otherwise a solid explanation, but I wanted to highlight this common assumption.

Many LSAT authors list two things and act like they're the ONLY two things, without explicitly saying they are (and recognizing that assumption becomes key to answering the problem correctly).

Quick example: "Punching your boss in the face or wrecking your boss's car will get you fired. Eddie just got fired, and he's never punched anyone in the face. Therefore, Eddie must have wrecked his boss's car."

(what about all the other things you could do that might get you fired? the author is assuming the two he listed are the only two)

Could you also talk a little about (D)? I spent some time considering it and thought:

It attempts to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis [M's hypothesis is false/laughable] merely by showing that it is possible [it is POSSIBLE a person who knew the epics well enough to write them down WILL not read them; it is POSSIBLE that no one else CAN read them]

Is there anything I'm missing?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're being a little too forgiving with stretching what (D) is saying to fit P's argument.

Did P attempt to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis?

No. P mocked the truth of a hypothesis, saying it was laughable. So we can eliminate the answer just from that.

You were interpreting "demonstrate the truth" as "evaluate/assess the truth", but those mean different things to LSAT.

If you say an author was trying to "demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis", you are saying the author was trying to prove that the hypothesis is true.

If you said, instead, that an author was trying to "evaluate/assess the truth of a hypothesis", then that's compatible with an author accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.

The second half of your answer interpretation also contained a potential problem. You were interpreting "showing that it is possible" in a very vague way, saying that the author's premise was saying it's POSSIBLE the translator already knew the poems and it's POSSIBLE no one else knew how to read the poems.

Be careful. (D) says the author was trying to "demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis merely by showing that THE HYPOTHESIS is possible".

The hypothesis is that "the Greek alphabet was invented by someone who knew Phoenician and wanted to record Homer's poems".

Did P's premise say anything like, "it's POSSIBLE that the Greek alphabet was invented by someone who knew Phoenician and wanted to record Homer's poems"?

Of course not. Yes, we could say that P's premises are bringing up certain possibilities. By (D) was attributing something much more specific to what P said. (D) was saying that P specifically said that THE HYPOTHESIS was possible.

So be careful with those pronouns like "it"; make sure you know what idea it refers to.

p.s. I think this answer is actually supposed to be a trap answer for people who think that the question stem asked for the flaw in M's argument. (D) is a closer match for what was going on in M's argument, although it's still not an accurate match for what M said.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering questions.

[htumonroe]

I find myself having difficulty with the ridiculous arguments...

Why would someone spend the time to develop an entirely new alphabet just so they would have to teach someone else when they already have knowledge of the Phoenician writing system? I know it has to be in the argument but the idea is a bit over the top.

[EmaD316]

Can someone explain why B is wrong?