Q5 - Hernandez: I recommend that staff cars

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Analyze Argument Structure (Describe Response)

Stimulus Breakdown:

H says, "let's wait until 4 years to replace cars".
G says, "Not cool. Some people who do tons of driving wear out their cars in 3 years." and
H says, "Okay, we'll then not for THOSE people."

Answer Anticipation:
How would we characterize the response? H basically says "we can make an exception for those exceptional cases". LSAT would typically refer to this as "limiting the scope of his proposal" or "qualifying his claim".

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) When H said "three year old cars are still in good condition", he meant "generally speaking … normally the case … not ALWAYS the case, since there are those road warriors who cover big territories and wear out cars faster". So "qualifying a premise" means "narrowing the applicability", and H narrowed his claim from being about "all 3 year old cars" to "those 3 year old cars that have been subjected to normal use".

(B) There is no criticizing happening.

(C) H implicitly AGREES with the accuracy of G's evidence.

(D) H doesn't change the subject; he just reins in his proposal so that it only applies to normal drivers.

(E) Again, H implicitly agrees with G's retort.

Takeaway/Pattern: Many LSAT students don't know the secondary meaning of "qualification" / "to qualify a statement". They often assume that we're speaking like "job qualifications", SUPPORTING an idea. But a qualification is like an exception, a caveat.

#officialexplanation

[tzyc]

Why is (A) the answer?
I do not understand how it "qualify" the premise...
Thank you

[fmuirhea]

Hi tz_strawberry,
To "qualify" a statement, as the term is used in this case, means to limit it, or make it less broad. You'll see this use of the word a lot on the LSAT.

Qualified statements are easier to support because they're not entirely absolute. Compare these two statements:

absolute: All Canadians are nice.
qualified: All Canadians who grew up in Toronto are nice.

The absolute statement is pretty hard to support; all we need is one exception to prove it invalid. It refers to all Canadians. The second statement shrinks that down to just those Canadians who also happen to have grown up in a certain city. Still tough to support, but easier than the original. In fact, you can qualify statements ad infinitum:

All Canadians who grew up in Toronto during the 1970s are nice if they have two or more siblings...

And on and on. Relative clauses beginning with "who," "which," or "that" tend to qualify, as well as conditional clauses beginning with "if." Let's look at the argument in question.



Here's Hernandez's original argument, pre-qualification:

P: three-year-old cars are in fine condition
C: therefore, we should replace cars every four years instead of every three years

There is a broad statement: his premise is referring to all three-year-old cars. The LSAT demands that you interpret quantifiers like "all" literally. This can be tricky to get used to, because in real life, we'll often use words like "all" when we really mean "most" or even just "some!" The LSAT, however, demands precise interpretation of terms. Hernandez has just made a big, sweeping statement, and it will be tough to justify.

Next, we have Green, who gives us something to think about: what about the sales people who do a lot of driving? They might wear out a car in three years or less. Green in effect weakens Hernandez's argument by pointing out a consideration that he hasn't taken into account: heavy users. Remember, all we need is one three-year-old car that isn't in fine condition to attack Hernandez's contention that all three-year-old cars are fine.

In response, Hernandez modifies his original premise (three-year-old cars are fine) by qualifying, or limiting, it: he now claims that three-year-old cars that are subjected to normal use are in fine condition. This statement is much easier to support, and in turn makes his entire argument easier to support.

Let me know if this is helpful!

[tzyc]

great explanation, thank you !

[ganbayou]

Hi, I chose E.
In fact, the one used the word ambiguously is not Green, but Hernandez, correct? (If we say some one used the word ambiguously)

Thank you

[maryadkins]

What word do you see being used ambiguously? I don't see one.

[ganbayou]

I thought the word used ambiguously is "three year old cars."
Hernandez later specified it as "subjected to normal use."
But maybe in this case you do not say the word is used "ambiguously"?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

I see.

So, on the LSAT, the flaw of using a word ambiguously is almost always going to be ONE word, and typically that word will be ABSTRACT.

Joy.
Sadness.
Health.

That sort of thing.

This is a phrase describing a concrete object with an adjective. "Three-year-old cars" is unlikely to be used ambiguously for that reason. More importantly, they aren't disagreeing about any of those terms: whether it's a car, or whether it's three years old. They're just debating what KIND of three-year-old cars. Debating what kind of something is being discussed isn't going to be described as "ambiguous use."