***
Millions of Narnians lack private health insurance, but millions of Narnians spend large percentages of their disposable income on entertainment. Therefore, Narnians clearly do not value their health.
Each of the following accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning displayed above EXCEPT:
(A) It overlooks the possibility that many Narnians do not understand the benefits of private health insurance.
(B) It takes for granted that some Narnians who lack health coverage spend large portions of their budgets on nonessential goods or services.
(C) It presumes, without providing justification, that Narnians do not value their health unless they purchase private health insurance.
(D) It presumes, without providing warrant, that Narnians who possess private health insurance value their health.
(E) It fails to consider the possibility that private health insurance in Narnia is unaffordable for millions of Narnians.
***
Highlight the text below to see the answer to the above Logical Reasoning question.
D
***
Photo by theproteinkid / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Looks to me like the best answer would be "B". However, the wording of "B" would need to be fixed slightly to make it the clear choice. It is not "taking for granted", but rather "suggesting". The reason I say that is since no where in there does it say that Narnians with health insurance value health, but goes as far as to say none do.
ReplyDeleteCould you please explain your reasoning on why the answer is D for the Flaw question and why B is incorrect? Thanks!
ReplyDeletemeh...I said B
ReplyDeleteI considered B as well. ??? But I am curious as to why it's D.
ReplyDeleteB here as well. I had a feeling the right answer was D but of course I chose B. I always do that!
ReplyDelete(B) is a flaw contained within the argument. The author mistakenly assumes that the two "groups" of millions ("non-health insurance" and "entertainment-buying") overlap.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is no overlap between the two groups. For example, in a country of 50 million, you could have 25 million who have no insurance and 25 million who spend a large portion of their budgets on entertainment. (The numbers wouldn't even have to add to the total population of the country.)
On the other hand, choice D confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. The argument concludes that if a Narnian doesn't buy private health insurance, then he/she doesn't value his/her health.
To say that if a Narnian does possess private health insurance, then he/she must value his/her health would certainly be a flaw. However, the argument doesn't make any claims about those who do possess private health insurance. Therefore, this is not a flaw that the argument makes.
Premises:
ReplyDeleteMillions of Narnians have no health insurance.
Millions of Narnians spend a large % of their disposable income on entertainment.
Conclusion: Narnians do not value their health.
Logical connector: Narnians are spending their money on entertainment instead of health insurance.
If Narnians don't spend on health insurance -> Narnians don't value their health.
Contra: If Value -> Spend.
(A), (C), and (E) are clearly wrong.
(D) doesn't seem to confuse this. So, I see why it is correct.
(B) is a bad answer because it could be argued to be out of scope, I think. I initially went for B, just like a lot of other posters. I changed to D but could easily argue that B is OOS. Who cares if Narnians spend disposable income on nonessential services? That's not necessarily related, right?
Hi Tom (and others who chose B),
ReplyDeleteI understand why you think B is not a flaw.
However, the entire argument rests on the "logical connector."
I would have phrased the logical connector as:
"The very same Narnians who lack health insurance spend a large % of their budgets on entertainment."
Entertainment falls within the category of nonessential goods or services.
% = portion
LSAC often uses synonyms in this way. Test-takers often miss questions because they don't recognize a concept from the stimulus when it appears in the answer choices.
The key to eliminating choice B is in recognizing that entertainment is a type of nonessential good or service.
Hope this clears it up!
-Steve
Great Question.
ReplyDeleteSteve, first of all, I tried to do this question under 1:30, so I did not have the time to perform a detailed analysis like the one you performed. But nonetheless, I can follow your reasoning, and I agree with it.
I picked D, because I noticed the leap in logic you referred to, and I quickly realized that A, B, C, and E attacked this assumption. Where as D was concerned with "Narnians who do possess health insurance," a group clearly not referred to in the stimulus.
T.R.
Why is entertainment a non-essential good or service? Aren't non-essential goods and services such things as unneeded taxi rides, more clothing than needed, etc.? I.e., can't you just take all essential goods, add more of them, and get non-essential goods? And, more importantly, can't we have these without having them for the purpose of entertainment? Additionally, can't we think of things like movies and concerts as neither goods (because they aren't objects) nor services? Of course, if by 'good' you mean anything with economic value, then your reasoning follows, but this isn't the primary meaning in 'goods and services,' since the phrase would then be redundant. Choice D is obviously the right answer, but for this to be a good LSAT question, it has to be clear that one can't spend money on entertainment without spending money on non-essential goods and services. As worded, however, this seems to allow room for varying interpretations.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you're actively engaging with the question. This is good.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are a few problems with your reasoning here, and I think others who had difficulty with the question will benefit from a more detailed explanation, so here goes:
Sure, unnecessary taxi rides and extra clothing are nonessential by definition, but they're not the only nonessential things that exist.
I agree, of course, that a greater quantity of essential things than is necessary will turn some quantity of those things into nonessentials (at least, for the owner because the owner wouldn't need ALL of them - just some).
However, I disagree with your contention that one can't classify every type of entertainment into the category of either "goods" or "services."
DVDs and books are physical goods.
Concerts, sporting events, and movies are services. Musicians, athletes, and actors perform for your amusement. You explained why they aren't goods, and I agree with you. However, you gave no evidence as to why they're not services. I would argue that they are services because their ostensible primary function is not to sell you something tangible (tickets are just a means to an end). They perform a service - they give you pleasure by selling you experiences.
I hope this resolves the "goods and services" issue (it's actually "goods or services" in the answer choice, by the way).
However, I think the real issue you're having with the question is whether entertainment is, by definition, nonessential or not.
I argue that entertainment is nonessential, and I believe that LSAC would agree.
Common definitions of "entertainment" include "diversion," "amusement," and "recreation."
Are these essential?
Life would certainly be boring without them, but in the context of a discussion regarding health, we're talking about essential in general, not essential to self-actualization.
An example that comes to mind with regard to "primary meanings" on the LSAT is PrepTest 21, Section 2, Question 17 (page 93 in 10 More Actual).
This Weaken question concerns the members of the Akabe tribe and their early-morning tea drink. Selection of the correct answer by any means other than process of elimination relies on your knowledge of the medical definition of the word "narcotic" (sleep-inducing) - not the more common usage of the term "narcotic" (any illegal drug).
Just as Choice B of my Flaw Except question may allow room for varying interpretations, Choice C of PrepTest 21, Section 2, Question 17 depends upon varying interpretations of the word "narcotic."
If Choice B of my question said "entertainment" instead of "nonessential goods or services", it would have been too easy to eliminate.
If Choice C of PT21, S2, Q17 said "sleep-inducing drug", it would've been too easy to eliminate as well.
Much of what makes this exam difficult is the fact that it frequently presents simple concepts with difficult, vague, and general language (as do many legal documents).
Whether or not that's fair or nice doesn't really matter here. At the end of the day, it's something that the LSAT does, so always think outside the box and expose yourself to as many LSAT questions as possible to get used to the "LSAT mindset."
Hope this helps.
-Steve
I think its a good question, I choose D as the answer. I picked it because it did not explain a flaw in the reasoning! I just found out about this site, nice!
ReplyDeleteyes, definitely chose D. Narnians who posses health care were never mentioned in the argument. clear choice. good question
ReplyDeleteI agree. The answer is clearly D. It is a good question.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that D is the best answer, I fail to see how E) describes a flaw in the argument. The affordability of healthcare is not at issue in the argument; how can failing to consider affordability be a flaw if it's completely irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteWell I definitely enjoyed studying it. This information provided by you is very practical for good planning. 호텔카지노
ReplyDeleteI am curious to find out what blog system you happen to be working with? I’m experiencing some small security problems with my latest site and I would like to find something more secure.
ReplyDelete슬롯머신777사이트
I am happy that I observed this blog, just the right information that I was searching for! I gotta bookmark this site it seems handy handy.
ReplyDelete토토사이트
온라인카지노
파워볼사이트
Hiya very cool web site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Superb .. I’ll bookmark your site and take the feeds additionally? I’m glad to search out so many useful information right here within the publish, we need work out more techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing.
ReplyDelete스포츠토토
안전놀이터
토토사이트
Hi! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche.
ReplyDelete스포츠토토
카지노사이트
파워볼게임
바카라
I love what you guys are up too. Such clever work and exposure! Keep up the very good works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to my own blogroll. 야한동영상
ReplyDeleteAlso feel free to visit may webpage check this link
야설
It’s exceptionally useful and you are clearly extremely proficient around there. Appreciate it for your efforts. Feel free to visit my website; 일본야동
ReplyDeleteWow, happy to see this awesome post. I hope this think help any newbie for their awesome work. By the way thanks for share this awesomeness from Feel free to visit my website; 국산야동
ReplyDeleteI think this is one of the most significant information for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But should remark on some general things, The web site style is perfect, the articles is really great. Feel free to visit my website;
ReplyDelete한국야동
It really is concurrently a significant spot that i really savored exploring. Just isn't everyday offering the outlook to see or watch something.
ReplyDelete스포츠토토
토토
파워볼
먹튀검증
Thanks for writing such a good article, I stumbled onto your blog and read a few post. I like your style of writing...
ReplyDelete토토사이트
스포츠중계
파워볼게임
안전놀이터
Very useful facts shared in this article, properly written! I could be reading your articles and the usage of the informative pointers. Looking forward to examine such knowledgeable articles. I’ve been searching for hours in this subject matter and sooner or later located your put up. , i have read your post and i am very impressed.먹튀검증디비
ReplyDeleteI read your article well It's been a great help I will visit you again to read your article. Thank you
ReplyDeleteHighly recommended did this. Very interesting information. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeletefall off, do not stumble, a website that offers trial play pgslot free games no credit Open for all slotxo
ReplyDeleteWonderful article! Keep on writing. These are actually great ideas in regarding blogging.
ReplyDeleteYour content is brilliant story in many ways. This is good. Thankyou for sharing!
ReplyDeleteHello. This is an impressive post. Keep on blogging. This is an excellent
ReplyDeleteKeep on blogging. This is an excellent post I seen thanks to share it.
ReplyDeleteEfficiently written information.
ReplyDeleteIt will be profitable to anybody who utilizes it, counting me.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteFor certain I will review out more posts day in and day out.
ReplyDelete