Q8 - Clark: Our local community theater

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Flaw

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: M must be an acclaimed playwright.
Evidence: M's play will be at local theater. Local theater often produces plays by acclaimed playwrights (PD says that critical acclaim is one of the main factors in selecting plays)

Any prephrase?
The evidence does establish that critical acclaim is important but does not go as far as the conclusion that it is guaranteed. No where does the argument state that critical acclaim is a required condition of the play the theater produces. Going into the answers, I would have in my head the argument treats something that is possible as though it were inevitable.

Answer choice analysis:
A) is close, but it's not that the relationship is reversed, but rather that the relationship is taken too far. Furthermore, as one slick student pointed out to me, (A) is about the conditions for gaining critical acclaim, while the argument hinges on the conditions for having a play produced at a certain playhouse.

B) is not close, since the argument is not related to causation.

C) if critical acclaim were a required condition for a play to be selected, we would diagram that as "If selected, then critically acclaimed". This accurately describes the author's reasoning - since M's play was selected, we can be certain the play/playwright is critically acclaimed.

D) is not true. There is no reason to believe the evidence is unreliable.

E) also plays off of causation. There is no causality implied in this argument. So this answer choice can be eliminated.

The correct answer is C.

Takeaway/Pattern: The conclusion is flawed simply because of the unmerited certainty of the author. Based on her evidence, the author could certainly fairly conclude that there is a fair chance that M's play is critically acclaimed, but the author is overstating her case by being certain of something that is merely plausible.

#officialexplanation

[legalrabbithole]

So what you're saying is:

the evidence states that critical acclaim is important but doesn't goes as far as saying that it's necessary to be in the play

the conclusion, however, goes way too far by treating critical acclaim as a necessary condition for being in the play.

...right? This is how I worded it in my explanations but just wanted to confirm.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So what you're saying is:

the evidence states that critical acclaim is important but doesn't goes as far as saying that it's necessary to be in the play

the conclusion, however, goes way too far by treating critical acclaim as a necessary condition for being in the play.

...right? This is how I worded it in my explanations but just wanted to confirm.

Exactly, saying that the evidence is too weak or that the conclusion is too strong are two ways of saying the same thing - which is a skill of particular interest on the LSAT. You may not predict word for word the issue as they state it, so being able to adapt to what is presented is really important.

Great work!

[irenaj]

So if I understand correctly, by "critical acclaim...one of the main factors", the stimulus implies a correlation between selection and acclaim right?

Then the conclusion unwarrantly infer a conditional reasoning between the two from the correlation?

Thanks a lot!

[chike_eze]

How would you diagram these two sentences:
(1) The best way to Y is X
(2) One of the main factors of Y is X

Thanks!

[chike_eze]

Same argument different words -- please provide feedback.

Mark: When my mother goes to Jones organic store, she often buys fresh yellow tomatoes. In fact, she says Jones organic store is one of the main factors she considers when shopping for fresh yellow tomatoes. Since Shelly bought fresh yellow tomatoes yesterday, she must have gone to Jones organic store.

The reasoning in Mark's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Answer options below are meant to be equivalent to answer options in the original question. However, the choices are not necessarily in the same order.

(A) Fails to show that buying yellow tomatoes is the cause of an effect rather than the effect of a cause

(B) Mistakes a condition sufficient for buying fresh yellow tomatoes for a condition necessary for buying fresh yellow tomatoes

(C) Mistakes a main factor considered in selecting X for a condition required for selecting X

(D) Bases its conclusion on a premise that is reasonably not credible

(E) Incorrectly assumes that a single cause cannot lead to multiple effects

[noah]

So if I understand correctly, by "critical acclaim...one of the main factors", the stimulus implies a correlation between selection and acclaim right?

Then the conclusion unwarrantly infer a conditional reasoning between the two from the correlation?

Thanks a lot!

I agree, more or less. I wouldn't say "implies a correlation" since the acclaim is one of the main factors, but since the theater only "often" produces those plays acclaim and production might not always be correlated; regardless, we definitely can't infer a conditional relationship, as you note.

[noah]

How would you diagram these two sentences:
(1) The best way to Y is X
(2) One of the main factors of Y is X

Thanks!

I wouldn't diagram either of those. Neither is a conditional relationship.

[noah]

Mark: When my mother goes to Jones organic store, she often buys fresh yellow tomatoes. In fact, she says Jones organic store is one of the main factors she considers when shopping for fresh yellow tomatoes. Since Shelly bought fresh yellow tomatoes yesterday, she must have gone to Jones organic store.

Fun exercise!

In the original, we have the acclaim to be the factor that often causes production, and then we learn that something is produced, and we incorrectly conclude acclaim.

So, A often factor in P.
P
Thus, A.

Let's see how yours matches up:

J often factor in FYT
FYT
Thus, J.

Looks good!

I think the first sentence might be a bit off, since we want to hear P often A (and then A is often main factor in P). You want FYT often J. I believe you have J often FYT.

Great work!

[Shiggins]

I really like the example of Jone's Market.

I read over the other explanations and they helped, I just want to clarify my thought process when answering this one and see if it is similar to the way it is expressed in the explanations given.

Critical acclaim being one of many factors make it neither sufficient by itself or necessary for selection of plays.

An analogy I thought of would be a High GPA is one of many factors that help get you accepted for law school. The high GPA is neither sufficient by itself to get you into law school and may be a factor that is overlooked. It could be your LSAT, resume. From that statement you can not determine it as necessary condition.

I am using that analogy to see if I do understand correctly the process and structure of this arg. I had narrowed it down to A and C and chose C. Based on my thought process.

From the above statement on critical acclaim I was able to rule out choice A which is another flaw that gets tested a lot.

If anyone could clarify what I wrote, or correct much appreciated.

[noah]

looks good!

[shirando21]

The argument informs us that the theater often produces plays by critically acclaimed playwrights. It also tells us that critical acclaim is a main factor considered in determining which plays to produce.

The evidence does establish that critical acclaim is important but does not go as far as the conclusion that it is guaranteed. No where does the argument state that critical acclaim is a required condition of the play the theater produces.

Going into the answers, I would have in my head the argument treats something that is possible as though it were inevitable. Answer choice (C) doesn't state this exactly, but gets at the same problem.

(A) is close, but it's not that the relationship is reversed, but rather that the relationship is taken too far.
(B) is not close, since the argument is not related to causation.
(D) is not true. There is no reason to believe the evidence is unreliable.
(E) also plays off of causation. There is no causality implied in this argument. So this answer choice can be eliminated.

yeah, now I see how A is reversed, how tricky~

[patrice.antoine]

Can we not also conclude that (A) has nothing to do with the argument? (A) discusses what conditions make a playwright be considered critically acclaimed. The argument does not address such detail. It just tells us that it is a factor used as part of the theatre's selection. Thoughts?

[noah]

Can we not also conclude that (A) has nothing to do with the argument? (A) discusses what conditions make a playwright be considered critically acclaimed. The argument does not address such detail. It just tells us that it is a factor used as part of the theatre's selection. Thoughts?

Beautiful! I've added that to my original analysis.