***
This Logical Reasoning question is from the October 2004 LSAT.:
Remember: don't read the question stem first because you are always looking for the same information when you read a stimulus:
What is the evidence?
What is the conclusion?
Does the evidence support the conclusion?
Always approach each stimulus / argument critically and skeptically, looking for a hole or flaw in the argument. (A disconnect between the stated Premises and the Conclusion.) The correct answer will usually relate to this hole or flaw.
This argument can be broken down in the following manner:
Premise 1: Environmental problems not caused by government can only be solved by changes in consumer habits.
Premise 2: Such changes will only occur if they are economically tempting.
Conclusion: Therefore, few such problems will be solved unless the solutions are economically tempting.
The question stem asks you what will make this argument valid. Think about the argument's assumption.
Looking at the 2nd premise and the conclusion, we can see it. The argument assumes consumers cause most environmental problems and that the government doesn't. This is the only reason to assume you'll need economically tempting solutions to solve most of these problems. (If the government caused most environmental problems, the 2nd Premise wouldn't kick in, and you might be able to solve most of them without tempting solutions.)
Choice A clearly fills the gap and makes the argument work. If choice A had been a 3rd premise, the conclusion would clearly follow. Therefore, choice A is the correct answer.
No other answer choice will make the argument work.
Choice B is not directly relevant, and it doesn't fill the gap in a way that would will make the argument work.
Choice C might be a necessary condition if the conclusion stated these changes were enough to solve such problems. However, the conclusion doesn't state this. Even if it did, choice C alone would not be sufficient to make the argument valid.
Choice D does not address the key assumption -- that the government doesn't cause most problems.
Choice E actually appears to conflict with the conclusion.
Remember:
With any LR, ask yourself whether or not the stimulus contains an argument. Identify the conclusion, and ask yourself if the remaining information (the premises) justify the conclusion. There's often a gap or flaw (a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion), and the correct answer usually relates somehow to this hole or flaw.
Breaking down the stimulus in more basic terms can help you better understand the argument and how the premises relate to the conclusion. The relationship between the premises and conclusion is what the LSAT means by the the "reasoning" or "validity" of the argument.
I am having trouble differentiating between choice (A) and choice (D). How is one true and the other false?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, this may just be semantics, but we're not looking for an answer choice that is true in light of the Stimulus. Rather, we're looking for one that would make the Conclusion valid, if added to the stimulus. (Two very different things.)
Choice A would do this, for the reasons noted in the explanation. If Most serious enviro problems are not caused by govt (Choice A); and if (as stated in the Stimulus) such non-govt problems can only be solved by economically tempting consumer changes, then clearly few such problems will be solved unless the solutions are economically tempting.
Looking at Choice D, however, even if it were true that most non-govt environmental problems were major in scope, this wouldn't necessarily make the Conclusion follow from the Stimulus. Why? Because even if Choice D is true, this still leaves open the possiblity that most enviro problems are in fact government-caused. And if this is the case, then you may still be able to solve them without economically tempting solutions. Therefore, the Conclusion would not necessarily logically follow from the Premises when Choice D is added.
P.S.: Just to clarify -- the fact that most non-govt enviro problems are serious doesn't mean that most serious enviro problems are non-govt in origin.
ReplyDelete(For example, you could have 100 enviro problems, and 50 serious ones. 97 of the enviro problems could be govt caued, and 48 of the serious ones could be govt caused. However, even if there were only 3 non-govt problems, and only 2 of the 3 non-govt enviro problems were serious, Choice D would still be true in this context.)
This "incorrect reversal" may be the source of the confusion.