Q8 - It has been claimed that

[mcrittell]

Not going to lie. I felt like reading this thing was a mess. Help please? Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

One of the things you're probably aware of by now is our strong emphasis on identifying the argument core when approaching Assumption Family questions. It helps get rid of a lot of the clutter and allows you to focus on the parts of the stimulus that will come into play in your evaluation of the argument - and not get lost in the rest!

Everything before the word "However" is pretty much junk. The evidence here is that social issues almost always have important political implications and seldom can definitely be settled on the basis of available evidence.

It draws the conclusion from this that if a program concerns scientific issues, that program gives rise to no such equal time obligation.

There's a fairly significant assumption here that the correct answer attacks. The argument assumes that scientific issues do not have important political implications and can can definitely be settled on the basis of available evidence. Well if that's not true, the argument falls apart. And answer choice (D) states that the assumption of the argument is not true. In general to strengthen arguments we provide the assumption and to weaken arguments we negate the assumption.

(A) provides the assumption and so strengthens the argument.
(B) does not specify whether we are talking about scientific issues and so is irrelevant.
(C) does not address scientific issues and so is irrelevant.
(E) is way off topic. Who cares about programs that are not broadcasted?

Hope that helps, but let me know if you still have a question on this one!

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

I have a question. Well, while solving this, I chose D. Even though, this is not an assumption question, but I was wondering what the assumption could be and how the logical reasoning would fit.


Premise - Social issues have Pol. implications (PI) and seldom can be settled (can BS) => obligation to provide equal time does arise.

Conclusion - If the program concerns scientific issues => scientific issues' program has no equal time obligation.


Let's try to come up with an assumption chain, leading to conclusion.


Social issues have PI and can BS => Scientific issues have PI and can BS => {CRASH} (I dont have anything to take contrapositive of PRemise because the conclusion requires "no equal time" as a necessary condition. Premise says PI => equal time. How do I get negation of "PI=> equal time"? If I negate PI => equal time to say that ~PI => ~ equal time, then, in effect, I will be reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions, or in other words, If PI =only way=> equal time)

Any thoughts? Please help.

[timmydoeslsat]

For a #8 weaken question stem, thinking about diagramming this type of question is not going to be of a benefit. I want you to think like a lawyer! Consider:

I am not going to grant your uncle the ability to watch television in my home. Critics have wondered why this is. Well, I do give your aunt the ability to watch television and this is so because she is a nice and polite person.

What am I assuming? That your uncle does not possess those qualities.

This argument talks about how science debates do not get this equal time idea. The social issue debates do get this equal time idea due to important political implications and isnt likely to be settled on the basis of evidence.

This argument assumes that the science debate would lack at least one of those qualities held by the social debate.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Timmy,

You have hit the nail on the head. I am not able to understand the question for two reasons. Why is it that the diagramming will not work in this question. There are two-fold reasons why I am asking this:

#1-Let me break down the argument you presented in premise/conclusion form:

Premise - Aunt possesses nicety and politeness => Let her watch a TV.

Conclusion - Uncle mustn't be allowed to watch a TV.

Does this mean that if someone doesn't possess nicety and politeness => Don't let someone watch a TV? This is actually a negation of PRemise.

For instance - If X => Y ....It does not mean that If ~X => ~Y. This is really confusing. The author is not assuming this.

#2 - On a separate note, if I ignore all the conditional mindset, I agree with what's printed above. However, I want to get to the point where the mind comes up with the same answer, no matter what my approach is -- thinking logically (conditional world), or thinking intuitively (outside of conditional world)

Can you please help me?


Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Great follow up post.

I would say that the argument presented before us in the stimulus dictates that having those ideas is sufficient and necessary for it being the case that equal time should be given.

So I would say that this is also the case in my analogous example.

You can think about weakening the argument in two ways:

1) The argument assumes that a science debate does not have those 2 qualities mentioned of the social debate.

2) We know that those 2 qualities are sufficient for the idea of "should be given equal time"...however, we could weaken it by obviously saying that there are indeed other ways to get to the idea of "should be given equal time"...like perhaps if an issue draws a lot of interest in the public or something.

With that being said, we want to be smart test takers. This is #8 and a weaken. I would never expect the testwriters to say that there are other ways to be sufficient for the idea of equal time. Instead, the testwriters are going to hit bigtime on the assumption of what qualities make up the science debate. This is what (D) does.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Question : But how do you know this ?

I would say that the argument presented before us in the stimulus dictates that having those ideas is sufficient and necessary for it being the case that equal time should be given.

There is no necessary and sufficient indicator, such as "if and only if", in the prompt. I am not able to understand this. Can you please help ?

[timmydoeslsat]

The argument says that a social debate is deserving of the equal time due to those two things. This tells me it is sufficient.

The argument also says that the scientific debate is not deserving of equal time. The only evidence that has been given in this argument is the two pointed quality of what a social debate has. This argument believes that the scientic debate does not have those qualities. So this is the same thing as saying that the qualities are necessary. To say that ~Specified qualities ---> ~Deserve equal time...is to say that those qualities are necessary.

It must be the case that the author believes the science debate lacks those qualities. The author mentions why the social debate is good enough, which is implying that by the science debate not having those, it cannot get the deserved time. Which is to say it is also necessary as well as sufficient.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Timmy,
AFter reading your response, and reviewing the question again, I feel that the premise is a causal premise. It uses "because." This by default, qualifies the premise as a necessary and sufficient condition. Secondly, the conclusion is a conditional one.

It's funny because the test writers have used a causal statement to conclude a conditional statement. HEnce, the idea of necessary and sufficient condition holds good in my opinion.

Do you agree? Do you want to share your thoughts?

[daijob]

I thought "many" (=some) is too weak to provide evidence, but it does not matter in weaken questions?
Or is it because D is the best answer here, so it is OK to have "many"?

Thanks,

[tommywallach]

Yes. Be careful about having strong rules about individual words. Almost any word can be used in a correct answer, depending on the context. And yes, oftentimes it simply comes down to what is the strongest answer, particularly on strengthen/weaken questions.

-t