Q6 - Chai: The use of the word

[wj097]

Hello,

I have arrived at (B) thru POE, but have slight concern with it as well.

(B) states the use of same term for 2 BIO forms w/ different lineages CAN be scientifically acceptable.

I see how Chai would disagree, and Dodd would agree, but only after we agree that their statements can be extended to a more general statement (concerning bio forms and not just specifically trees). Or is it the word CAN in (B) that allows us to judge whether Chris/Dodd statement which strictly concerns for tree is relevant though we cannot be certain of other bio forms. Actually would you even agree that the word CAN denotes some kind of possibility rather than definiteness?

Thx

[ohthatpatrick]

Interesting philosophy of language questions you have there.

In regards to your first thought, yes, the knowledge of a specific example allows us to justify a broader wording.

Consider this example:
Joey the dog can bark to the tune of "Bridge Over Troubled Water", a deeply poetic song.

We could try to create a safe restatement of that with broader language:
A nonhuman mammal can convey signature elements of a work of art.

To support that claim, we only need 1 example of a nonhuman mammal conveying part of an artwork, which we have in Joey's rendition of the song.

Often on Inference questions, LSAT likes to use this safe but broad wording to make the correct answer seem less appealing or less obviously relevant to the specific topic being discussed.

But, again, the "can" is what makes it safe, because "can" only asserts a possibility, so it only needs one example to prove it's true.

If we used "most nonhuman mammals", "many nonhuman mammals", "often can convey", etc., then we would need more than one example to support it.

In regards to your second question, I think you were really highlighting two different meanings to the word "can":
allowable possibility
vs.
current ability

If I say, "my daughter can say the alphabet", I'm really talking about 'current ability'.

If I say, "an atheist can be President of the U.S.", I'm really talking about 'allowable possibility'.

I interpreted your "definiteness" as recognizing the usage that corresponds to 'current ability'.

Clearly, though, the two different meanings are based on context. I think the context for Q6 would imply that we're using "can" to mean "allowable possibility", but I think we could also support that Dodd thinks that "tree" has the "current ability" to be used as a scientific term.

Anyway, let me know if I missed part of your meaning.

Have fun!

[wj097]

Interesting philosophy of language questions you have there.

In regards to your first thought, yes, the knowledge of a specific example allows us to justify a broader wording.

Consider this example:
Joey the dog can bark to the tune of "Bridge Over Troubled Water", a deeply poetic song.

We could try to create a safe restatement of that with broader language:
A nonhuman mammal can convey signature elements of a work of art.

To support that claim, we only need 1 example of a nonhuman mammal conveying part of an artwork, which we have in Joey's rendition of the song.

Often on Inference questions, LSAT likes to use this safe but broad wording to make the correct answer seem less appealing or less obviously relevant to the specific topic being discussed.

But, again, the "can" is what makes it safe, because "can" only asserts a possibility, so it only needs one example to prove it's true.

If we used "most nonhuman mammals", "many nonhuman mammals", "often can convey", etc., then we would need more than one example to support it.

In regards to your second question, I think you were really highlighting two different meanings to the word "can":
allowable possibility
vs.
current ability

If I say, "my daughter can say the alphabet", I'm really talking about 'current ability'.

If I say, "an atheist can be President of the U.S.", I'm really talking about 'allowable possibility'.

I interpreted your "definiteness" as recognizing the usage that corresponds to 'current ability'.

Clearly, though, the two different meanings are based on context. I think the context for Q6 would imply that we're using "can" to mean "allowable possibility", but I think we could also support that Dodd thinks that "tree" has the "current ability" to be used as a scientific term.

Anyway, let me know if I missed part of your meaning.

Have fun!

Thanks Patrick for the very comprehensive explanation, and I think all things you mentioned makes total sense.

Interestingly enough, this raises a question of whether Chai would actually disagree the general statement of (B), because while Chai makes a case that 2 different trees should not use same term, I am not sure if he/she wants to extend the statement to all cases of bio forms of similar nature. After all, to disagree with the general statement of (B), don't we have to say that Chai would definitely need to believe that all cases are unacceptable??

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

That's an awesome point. We can safely extrapolate from specific to general in Dodd's case, but in Chai's case, in order to disagree with (B), we end up attributing a much broader, sweeping judgment to Chai than anything he actually said.

Oh, well. This is where LSAT would lean on "the strongest grounds", as opposed to "rock solid grounds".

[tara_amber1]

I actually boiled it down to (B) and (A), taking this test untimed I sure spent too much time analyzing each answer. But I finally came to the conclusion that "advisable" in (A) makes it a bad answer choice since that's not the case in the argument.

(C) Dodd doesn't have an opinion on this, Chai does.
(D) Chai thinks this is important, but in general terms we don't know what importance it may be to Dodd.
(E) Chai doesn't have an opinion about forms with similar structures. Just deciduous and coniferous plant forms are mentioned on her end.

[lsat2016]

Can anyone explain why A is a wrong answer choice? is it only because of the word "advisable"??

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's put a complete explanation up here.

Task: Identify the Disagreement

Process:
Read each person's statements.
Go back to the first person and ask yourself, for each claim that person made, "Did the 2nd dude disagree with this?"

In this case, Chai makes 3 claims

1. It's acceptable for laymen to call BOTH deciduous and coniferous plants "trees"

2. It's scientifically inadequate to do so.

3. The two plant types have utterly different lineages.

Ask yourself, was Todd arguing
1. It's NOT acceptable for laymen to use "tree" for both?

2. It IS scientifically adequate to do so?

3. The two plant types do NOT have utterly different lineages?

We see the best match for #2.
Todd argues "it IS scientifically adequate to call both forms 'tree'" by saying "it is acceptable as a scientific term".

So we can sharpen our pre-phrase around this language:
the two people disagree over whether it is scientifically acceptable to use 'tree' for both forms

Since the crux of the disagreement is "is scientifically acceptable/adequate" vs. "is NOT scientifically acceptable/adequate", I would be scanning for that wording.

(A) whether or not it's advisable to use a certain term in scientific discourse
(B) whether or not it's scientifically acceptable to use a certain term
(C) whether or not two plant forms evolved a certain way
(D) whether or not it's important that lay terms reflect current science
(E) whether or not two different biological forms can have different lineages

By getting a strong pre-phrase, we would only be considering (A) and (B)

(B) certainly seems to lock in more closely with whether 'tree' is scientifically acceptable/adequate.

Chai would say, "NO, it's not scientifically acceptable because it masks the two different lineages."
Todd would say, "YES, scientifically acceptable because both have similar composition/structure."

For (A), can we infer either person's position on this claim?
What is an "ordinary term", exactly? Do we mean ANY common term or lay term? Neither person used the phrase 'ordinary term', so I'm not sure we can match it exactly to the concepts.

The FEEL of (A) is probably that Chai would say NO and Todd would say YES.

But (A) is a pretty sweeping statement that Todd would not necessarily agree with. He thinks 'tree', specifically, is okay as a scientific term because the two different plant forms denoted by that name of similar structure and composition.

Maybe most other ordinary terms do NOT deserve to get used, in Todd's mind. Maybe many ordinary terms do NOT have a respectable scientific basis and so really should not be the preferred term.

And, again, the notion of whether something is "an adequate/acceptable scientific term" is not the same as whether something "advisable to use in scientific discourse". They're not miles apart, but we don't have to settle for a stretch when (B) is nailing some of the language that got actually used.

Hope this helps.