Q14 - Some people claim that every

[bradleygirard]

I have beating my head against the desk over this one. Here goes;
So, the author argues that the claim about self expression is trivial, and therefore until 'some people' can give us a more interesting interpretation, we dont have to take them seriously.
As a premise we have that the claim made is trivial(T).
We then seem to get a conditional conclusion that states until a claim is interesting (I) we dont have to take it seriously(S).
argument;
1. T
C. ~S-->~I

It would appear then that our job is to somehow connect T and I or the S and both A and C appear to do so.
A. gives us T-->~I . Which upon first glance seems to do the trick, it connects the two things we were looking to connect. However, when you come across C you run into this;
C. T-->~S which then gives us ~I

Now, is C correct and A incorrect because C fulfills the conditional nature of the conclusion whereas A does not? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I see your logic, but I think they have something else in mind. The conclusion of the argument is that "until they give us something more interesting (something that is not trivial), we are not obliged to take their claim seriously."

They haven't really offered anything in support of this claim.

The test-writers ask us to find something that provides support for the conclusion that the claim does not need to to be taken seriously.

The answer will probably discuss what should be taken seriously. Only answer choices (B) and (C) tell us what should be taken seriously. And you'll see that answer choice (C) is basically the conclusion restated. You could reinterpret answer choice (C) in the following way, "if something is trivial, then it is not worthy of serious consideration."

Another way to look at this is that argument says the following


Trivial claim
========
~ Worthy of serious consideration

We're asked to support this argument

Answer choice (C) says

Trivial --> ~Worthy of Consideration

This bridges the gap in the reasoning perfectly... I hope this helps.

(A) does not support the conclusion that "we are not obliged to take the claim seriously."
(B) is really tempting but wrong. Just because most people do not take trivial claims seriously, does not mean that they didn't have an obligation to take them seriously.
(C) establishes the conditional relationship put forward in the conclusion of the argument.
(D) does not support the conclusion that "we are not obliged to take the claim seriously."
(E) does not support the conclusion that "we are not obliged to take the claim seriously."

[chike_eze]

I think they use "uninteresting" in most answer choices because they hoped we would be duped into "not more interesting" = "uninteresting"

Conclusion:
not more interesting --> not take seriously
take seriously --> more interesting (contra)

The assumption is that trivial matters are not more interesting (note that not more interesting and uninteresting are not equivalent statements)

Our answer should connect Trivial to not taken seriously: Which can be accomplished in two ways
1. Trivial --> not more interesting
2. Trivial --> not take seriously

Answer choice (A), I think, plays on the first. I was stuck on this option for a while, my first time through. Trivial --> uninteresting. But "uninteresting" is what makes this choice wrong because "uninteresting" is not equivalent to "not more interesting". why? "not more interesting" has a wider range, it could be less interesting, interesting, not-interesting etc..

(C) Is the contrapositive of the second option.
> taken seriously --> not Trivial
> Trivial --> not taken seriously (our answer)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The assumption is that trivial matters are not more interesting (note that not more interesting and uninteresting are not equivalent statements)

The way the conclusion is phrased, I can see why answer choice (A) can be tempting.

The issue is that answer choice (A) can't be used to support the conclusion that we "are not obliged to take their claim seriously" - and we really want to support the conclusion. If we add answer choice (A) to the evidence

All trivial claims are uninteresting + the view is trivial

we could infer

the view is uninteresting (not more interesting)

Adding that to the conclusion,

if it is not more interesting, we are not obliged to the claim seriously.

we could again infer

that we are not obliged to take the claim seriously

But we shouldn't add a claim to the conclusion, since we're trying to support the conclusion - not utilize it.

Instead, if we add answer choice (C) to the evidence, we get

no claims that are trivial are worthy of serious consideration + the view is trivial

we could infer

the view is not worthy of serious consideration

And ask yourself, is the conclusion trying to claim that the view is not interesting or that we're not obliged to take it seriously? I believe the latter, which means answer choice (C) strengthens the reasoning.

[deedubbew]

But we shouldn't add a claim to the conclusion, since we're trying to support the conclusion - not utilize it.

Please explain what you mean by this. Why wouldn't adding a claim that bridges the gap, support the conclusion? What do you mean utilize it?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

But we shouldn't add a claim to the conclusion, since we're trying to support the conclusion - not utilize it.

Please explain what you mean by this. Why wouldn't adding a claim that bridges the gap, support the conclusion? What do you mean utilize it?

Hey deedubbew,

Bridging the gap would support the conclusion, but trying to use the conclusion to prove the conclusion will not.

My point on answer choice (A) was that it might help support the view that the claims are uninteresting. But this will not support the conclusion about whether or not we are obliged to take the claim seriously. This issue would still be unaddressed by any evidence either provided in the stimulus or in answer choice (A).

Hope that helps!

[deedubbew]

Okay, I now understand what you mean when you say that the conclusion cannot be used since it would assume the validity of the conclusion. Yet, I still find the correct answer choice very confusing. How is being worthy of serious consideration the same as being obliged to take a claim seriously? Also, how do we establish that the claims are trivial. Instead of the premise that the claim is trivial I considered the premises to establish the claims were uninteresting.

Premise: Trivial --> Self-expressive
Premise: ~Interesting
(C): Trivial --> ~Take Claim Seriously
Conclusion: Take Claim Seriously --> Interesting
(~Interesting --> ~Take Claim Seriously)

[Cavetisy]

I had fallen for Answer Choice B, since it has the relationship between "trivial" and "serious" that C has. However, you said that "B" commits an equivocation by assuming that what most people "take" necessarily is what they are "obligated" to do. So my question is in regards to the language strength in "B": MOST! Had C said "Most claims that are trivial are not worthy of serious consideration," would that still be correct?

In order words I am asking if a conditional conclusion such as "All A's are B's," can be strengthened by a similar most statement (Most A's are B's)?

[tommywallach]

Hey Cavet,

No, such a thing would not strengthen. In fact, the word "most" implies "not all," so it weakens!

-t

[Cavetisy]

Well that explains it! Thanks Tommy, really appreciate it, man!

[pewals13]

I read the word "trivial" as modifying the overlooked implications of the claim rather than the claim itself. This confused me, but (C) is the only real option. How does "trivial" refer to the claim being made?

[christine.defenbaugh]

I read the word "trivial" as modifying the overlooked implications of the claim rather than the claim itself. This confused me, but (C) is the only real option. How does "trivial" refer to the claim being made?

Good question, pewals13!

I find this sentence to be a fairly awkward wording, but that's a style complaint rather than a logic complaint. However, it does make it a bit annoying to break out.

So, to figure out what trivial is really modifying (or, in other words, what it is that is really trivial) we have to take a step out and think about the concepts in play here.

Imagine if a lovable, but not too aware, friend excitedly told you that he had just read that every US President had 10 fingers, as if this was earth-shattering. You might respond that, hellooooo, EVERYONE has 10 fingers.

Now, what's trivial? The 'overlooked implication' is that everyone has 10 fingers. The claim itself is that all US presidents have 10 fingers.

You could argue that it's a trivial thing to say that everyone has 10 fingers. But if that's trivial, then it's DEFINITELY trivial to go making a thing out of US presidents having 10 fingers. The trivialness of the implication essentially renders the original claim trivial as well.

You could easily rewrite the argument to have a few more explicit steps, and it would be communicating the exact same ideas:

People claim X thing has Y characteristic. However, that claim is trivial because everyone has Y characteristic. Therefore, [final conclusion].

In this reformulation, the accusation of triviality is really kind of a subsidiary conclusion (supported by the universal nature of the thing in question).

What do you think?

[pewals13]

Great explanation, I get it!

[mkd000]

I still think there are two assumptions in this stimulus:
1)Trivial --> not more interesting
and
2)Trivial --> not obliged to take seriously

Am I right? I read matt's comments above but I just can't bring myself to agree with him/understand what he is saying.

The only answer choice that addresses any of the assumptions I outlined above is (C)

if (A) said: "if all claims that are trivial are not more interesting", would this strengthen the stimulus?

Please let me know!! I would very much appreciate a MLSAT person's feedback on my questions.

thanks in advance

[ohthatpatrick]

I see where you're getting that perceived language shift from, but that first link you're looking for is NOT a missing link.

I just met Bob. He's from Utah. Until I meet a more interesting fellow, I will not be wearing a tie.

Does that mean we're assuming
Bob --> not more interesting
or
Utah --> not more interesting ?

The problem in either case is ... not more interesting than WHAT?

Bob --> not more interesting than Bob
sure, duh. Bob can't be more interesting than himself.

Guy from Utah --> not more interesting than a guy from Utah.
Same sense of circular logic.

The issue here is relative vs. absolute.

Even if I found some people's claim that "every human discovery is self-expression" to be a fascinating, non-trivial claim, I could still begin a sentence with "Until they give us a more interesting interpretation ... "

Starting a sentence that way doesn't logically require anything about whether the original interpretation was interesting or uninteresting.

You can be rich or not-rich, and it's still possible for you to say, "Until I get richer ..."
You can be smart or not-smart, and it's still possible for you to say, "Until I get smarter ..."

The real focus of the conclusion is the "don't take seriously" claim. Grammatically speaking, when the conclusion is a long sentence with modifiers (two commas) or compound structure, you can generally count on LSAT to really only be testing the main clause/emphasis, and using the extraneous words as fodder for trap answers.

f.e. when conclusions sound like
Not only X but also Y
Although X, Y
The tested conclusion is really Y.

Another way to think of the conclusion is as an If/Then. In those cases, we are only concerned with proving/refuting the THEN part.

The last sentence, as a conditional, says:
If they haven't given us a more interesting interpretation of their claim,
then we don't need to take them seriously.

Well has the trigger been met? HAVE they given us a more interesting interpretation of their claim than .. their claim? Of course not.

So the second half of the conclusion is triggered immediately, without the need of any other assumption to get there.

[RAANZ439]

BLURB ANALYSIS
From the blurb, we actually got 3 premises and 1 conclusion:

P1. The claim is trivial (from Sentence 1 & 2)
C is T

P2. The claim is not interesting enough to trigger serious treatment. (Sentence 3)
C is ~I

P3. Claims that are not interesting enough, should not be taken seriously (Sentence 3)
~I ===> ~S

It follows the conclusion:
C. The claim is not to be taken seriously
C is ~S

P2 is actually really unobvious and understated. So, if we are to strengthen the argument, we can :
1. strengthen either P1, 2 or 3 OR
2. put in an additional strengthener P


ANSWER ANALYSIS
A: T ===> ~I
It strengthens P2 and thus INDIRECTLY strengthens the conclusion

B: Irrelevant because "most people" indicates opinion (fact) rather than principle

C: T ===> ~S
It DIRECTLY strengthens the conclusion by providing additioanl strengthener P

D: Irrelevant

E: T ===> I
It indirectly weakens the conclusion by negating P2

SO, both A and C work as strengtheners, but C affects conclusion in a stronger fashion. C is the correct answer.

[Marky Mark]

Can someone please check and see if my conditionals are correct? I've read all the answers here and I'm still a little shaky on my understanding.

If Human Discovery -> Self expression. But if Anything (including HD) is Self expression -> Trivial. If claim is Not More Interesting -> shouldn't be taken seriously.

The parallel example I came up with is:
My dog Molly has fur. (Molly -> Fur). But trivially all black labs have fur (BL -> Fur). If it's the claim "a black lab has fur" -> trivial [because all of them do.]. Therefore, until you tell me something more exciting (this is where ohthatpatrick's comment comes in to play - more exciting than what?) -> I don't have to listen.

The biggest question I have is where does trivial come into the conditional chain of logic? Is "Trivial" the necessary condition in "Anything is Self Expression -> trivial?" Or does "Trivial" modify "Anything?"

Haha I'm so confused.