I believe this is a strengthen question which would mean we're looking for something to bolster the argument core. I initially chose B because I thought as is protocol for many strengthen questions, the correct answer can eliminate alternative causes/reasons that can destroy/weaken our conclusion.
Is answer choice B the incorrect answer because it does nothing to help support our conclusion: "adoption of this recommendation would not significantly reduce the occurence of hearing loss.." ?
LSAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- patrice.antoine
-
Thanks Received: 35
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 111
- Joined: November 02nd, 2010
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q7 - Increases in the occurence of
The core is:
Almost all stereo headphones are bought by teenagers themselves.
-->
The safety feature in stereo headphones won’t significantly reduce hearing loss in teenagers.
The argument assumes teenagers aren't going to buy headphones with the safety feature. But maybe teenagers have more foresight than we think and do actually care about their long-term hearing. (D) strengthens the argument by making this possibility less likely--if teenagers are already aware of the risk and listening at dangerous levels, it makes it less likely they're going to buy the new, safer model, just as the argument assumes.
(A) is irrelevant. We are already told that stereo headphones cause hearing loss. Knowing that they're more dangerous than other ways of listening doesn't support the link between our premise and conclusion.
(B) is also irrelevant. Again, we have been told that headphones contribute to hearing loss--we accept this as true. We're concerned with whether this new model idea is going to fix the problem or not, not with what the degree of the problem is.
(C) is out of scope. The argument is about teenagers' ears, not their parents.
(E) is irrelevant as well. It doesn't give us any indication of whether teenagers will use/buy the new model or not.
Almost all stereo headphones are bought by teenagers themselves.
-->
The safety feature in stereo headphones won’t significantly reduce hearing loss in teenagers.
The argument assumes teenagers aren't going to buy headphones with the safety feature. But maybe teenagers have more foresight than we think and do actually care about their long-term hearing. (D) strengthens the argument by making this possibility less likely--if teenagers are already aware of the risk and listening at dangerous levels, it makes it less likely they're going to buy the new, safer model, just as the argument assumes.
(A) is irrelevant. We are already told that stereo headphones cause hearing loss. Knowing that they're more dangerous than other ways of listening doesn't support the link between our premise and conclusion.
(B) is also irrelevant. Again, we have been told that headphones contribute to hearing loss--we accept this as true. We're concerned with whether this new model idea is going to fix the problem or not, not with what the degree of the problem is.
(C) is out of scope. The argument is about teenagers' ears, not their parents.
(E) is irrelevant as well. It doesn't give us any indication of whether teenagers will use/buy the new model or not.
-
- dukeag
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 17
- Joined: April 22nd, 2014
Re: Q7 - Increases in the occurence of
What a sneaky little question, playing on my assumptions so well 
I got this question wrong, but let me see if I can work it out.
The intro in this passage really sets you up on this one, trying to trick you into making the same assumption the author makes. It talks about how increases in hearing loss among teens is due to their listening to loud music.....So I automatically assumed....oh yeah, teenagers, irresponsible, don't care about the long term effects on their hearing, only care about short term enjoyment of music....
But the beginning was just irrelevant context. The meat of the passage was in the last sentence.
Conclusion: is the adoption of the recommendation by manufacturers to make and sell stereo headphones which automatically turn off when a dangerous volume is reached will not greatly reduce the occurrence of hearing loss in teens.
Premise: Why? because almost all stereo headphones used by teens are bought by teens.
There are so many assumptions going on between the premise and conclusion, such as: if these new type of stereotypes were cheaper, teenagers would not still buy them. If teenagers became aware of the risks involved in listening to dangerously loud music they would not consider more safer stereo headphones (notice how the introduction tries to set you up for ignoring this assumption, trying to trick you into assuming teens are too irresponsible to care). Another assumption is that parents don't greatly influence teenagers' buying decisions and would not successfully pressure them into buying these new kind of headphones....and the list goes on.
D eliminates one of these assumptions as a source of attack and thereby strengthens it, saying that even if teenagers knew the risks of listening to loud music, they would still continue to listen to loud music. This offers the argument a supporting premise as to why these new type of headphones would not greatly reduce hearing loss among teens-- because even if teenagers knew about the dangers of listening to loud music they would still listen to loud music and therefore may not be as likely to buy the safer headphones as they would if this assumption were untrue.
I chose C, because I was thinking---well ok the parents are all for these new types of safe head phones----which means that they would possibly buy them----but that doesn't mean they don't listen to loud music---so why would teenagers who listen to loud music-----not potentially buy the new head phones?(complicated I know, I have no idea why I reasoned it that way)
I was getting to the heart of the assumption, but I missed it by a lot. First, the author does not explicitly state that the parents would be willing to buy these new type of head phones, that was an assumption I was making based on the fact that they were pushing the manufacturers to make safer headphones. A reasonable assumption I know, but out of scope in the context of this LSAT passage and nevertheless an assumption. Second of all, D is the right answer because it gets more to the heart of matter - it explicitly connects the premise to the conclusion by referring to the teens themselves. C does not do this. The strength of the premise for the support depends on the will of teenagers to buy these new type of headphones, not about parents. And just because parents are willing to do something does not mean that teenagers are willing to do the same thing.
I got this question wrong, but let me see if I can work it out.
The intro in this passage really sets you up on this one, trying to trick you into making the same assumption the author makes. It talks about how increases in hearing loss among teens is due to their listening to loud music.....So I automatically assumed....oh yeah, teenagers, irresponsible, don't care about the long term effects on their hearing, only care about short term enjoyment of music....
But the beginning was just irrelevant context. The meat of the passage was in the last sentence.
Conclusion: is the adoption of the recommendation by manufacturers to make and sell stereo headphones which automatically turn off when a dangerous volume is reached will not greatly reduce the occurrence of hearing loss in teens.
Premise: Why? because almost all stereo headphones used by teens are bought by teens.
There are so many assumptions going on between the premise and conclusion, such as: if these new type of stereotypes were cheaper, teenagers would not still buy them. If teenagers became aware of the risks involved in listening to dangerously loud music they would not consider more safer stereo headphones (notice how the introduction tries to set you up for ignoring this assumption, trying to trick you into assuming teens are too irresponsible to care). Another assumption is that parents don't greatly influence teenagers' buying decisions and would not successfully pressure them into buying these new kind of headphones....and the list goes on.
D eliminates one of these assumptions as a source of attack and thereby strengthens it, saying that even if teenagers knew the risks of listening to loud music, they would still continue to listen to loud music. This offers the argument a supporting premise as to why these new type of headphones would not greatly reduce hearing loss among teens-- because even if teenagers knew about the dangers of listening to loud music they would still listen to loud music and therefore may not be as likely to buy the safer headphones as they would if this assumption were untrue.
I chose C, because I was thinking---well ok the parents are all for these new types of safe head phones----which means that they would possibly buy them----but that doesn't mean they don't listen to loud music---so why would teenagers who listen to loud music-----not potentially buy the new head phones?(complicated I know, I have no idea why I reasoned it that way)
I was getting to the heart of the assumption, but I missed it by a lot. First, the author does not explicitly state that the parents would be willing to buy these new type of head phones, that was an assumption I was making based on the fact that they were pushing the manufacturers to make safer headphones. A reasonable assumption I know, but out of scope in the context of this LSAT passage and nevertheless an assumption. Second of all, D is the right answer because it gets more to the heart of matter - it explicitly connects the premise to the conclusion by referring to the teens themselves. C does not do this. The strength of the premise for the support depends on the will of teenagers to buy these new type of headphones, not about parents. And just because parents are willing to do something does not mean that teenagers are willing to do the same thing.
-
- smsotolongo
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 33
- Joined: September 21st, 2014
Re: Q7 - Increases in the occurence of
This question stumped me. Is it just me or does it seem that for a no. 7 this one was a little tough? With the core being that the recommendation will not work because teens buy most of their own headphones you have to assume that not all headphones will have this feature and teens will stay away from it those that do.
-
- BensonC202
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 19
- Joined: April 08th, 2019
Re: Q7 - Increases in the occurence of
smsotolongo Wrote:This question stumped me. Is it just me or does it seem that for a no. 7 this one was a little tough? With the core being that the recommendation will not work because teens buy most of their own headphones you have to assume that not all headphones will have this feature and teens will stay away from it those that do.
Exactly, so the argument would like us to support the argument that since children have freedom to buy the headphones, so the new features on the headphone is not significantly reducing the hearing loss problem.
If D is correct answer, then we must assume that children " can " turn off that feature based on their own free will. To me, its definitely not a big jump on the logically, but you definitely need to make the assumption that the feature could be switched on and off based on children's wills.
Thats why I chose E.
If few headsets manufacturers had made the headsets, equipped the automatically turn off feature, then it must be true that some of the headsets manufacturers " do " not have their headsets equipped with that feature. If this is the case, we know from the last sentence of the premise that most teenagers make their decision to buy the headsets they want, then would not answer E best support the argument that since they all choose to by the headset without the feature, so the feature would not significantly reduce the hearing loss problem ?
May any one help us out ?
5 posts Page 1 of 1