Q7 - In preagricultural societies, social

[rmoncel]

Hi there,

I correctly chose answer B but only because the other ones were clearly wrong. I guess that's the spirit. But still, B seemed wrong to me as well as it seemed to use faulty logic.

The argument in the prompt is FEW and PREDICTED --> STABLE, PREDICTABLE. And the answer choice argues that -FEW --> -STABLE, -PREDICTABLE.

I thought was wrong to infer that. Help? Thanks!

[aileenann]

Yes that is the spirit indeed! Process of elimination is the way to go.

But of course, we want to know - at the very least in the luxury of time spent reviewing - why the correct answer is correct!

I'd say here that you probably didn't necessarily want to think this was a conditional statement. I don't see any conditional language - either in the "if-then" classic form or in any statements that purport to be true 100% of the time. In such cases, we are really looking at a statement that is more about correlations and probability.

I think here the author is making the weaker claim that low options tends to go along with stability and high options tend to go along with not so much stability. We don't need to worry about the logical negation problem you see because these aren't logical statements. This is rather more like taking this general correlation the author notes and applying it at high option rates as well as low ones.

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have follow-up questions or concerns!

[rmoncel]

Thanks for that useful distinction. I have found myself on several occasions wondering whether a conditional relationship could be implied based on some less straightforward language used in a passage or based on language that denotes a probable relationship (could, can etc.) rather than a certain one (if-then, must, requires etc.).

[farhadshekib]

Is this not a cause and effect relationship?

Cause: Social roles few + easily predicted.

Effect: Accordingly, interpersonal relations stable and predictable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No Cause: Modern society = various different social roles + not easily predictable.

No Effect: interpersonal relations in modern society = less stable + less predictable...

[goriano]

Is this not a cause and effect relationship?

Cause: Social roles few + easily predicted.

Effect: Accordingly, interpersonal relations stable and predictable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No Cause: Modern society = various different social roles + not easily predictable.

No Effect: interpersonal relations in modern society = less stable + less predictable...

Yes, I would think so primarily because of the word "accordingly."

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Is this not a cause and effect relationship?

Cause: Social roles few + easily predicted.

Effect: Accordingly, interpersonal relations stable and predictable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No Cause: Modern society = various different social roles + not easily predictable.

No Effect: interpersonal relations in modern society = less stable + less predictable...

Yes, I would think so primarily because of the word "accordingly."

goriano, I think I would not assign causation on this one. The word accordingly, does suggest that there is a relationship there, but I'm not convinced it's a causal one, nor does the correct answer imply an issue of causation.

I typically use the following language cues to identify causality:



Hope that helps!

[JackyC766]

It came down to b and e for me. I got b, because is sounds better than e. Why would e be wrong?