Q16 - Political scientist: People become

[nbayar1212]

Can someone explain why E is wrong?

Also, I get that the conclusion is causal, but is there conditional logic going on in the stimulus as well?

Lastly, if the stimulus had not used the word "entirely" in the conclusion, would answer choice A) still be right? From my understanding, if the LSAT makes a causal claim in the conclusion, we can assume that the author of that particular stimulus is assuming that the stated cause is THE ONLY cause.

[rinagoldfield]

Let’s start with the argument core here:

If people believe the government can’t affect important issues, then people become unenthusiastic about voting

-->

Decreasing voter turnout is entirely due to people’s belief that the government can’t affect important issues.

There are a couple of big issues with this argument. Firstly, there’s a language jump from "unenthusiastic about voting" to "decreasing voter turnout." There are lots of things people are unenthusiastic about that they do anyway; people work full time even though they are unenthusiastic about it; they clean up after sick kids even though they are unenthusiastic about it, etc. A lack of enthusiasm doesn’t necessarily lead to a lack of showing up.

Secondly, the conclusion reverses the logic of the argument:

If don’t believe in govt --> unenthusiastic about voting

is NOT the same as:

unenthusiastic about voting --> don’t believe in govt

Thirdly, the conclusion is way too extreme! It states that decreasing voter turnout is due ENTIRELY to peoples’ faded beliefs in the government. But maybe there are other reasons people aren’t voting, like they have to work on Tuesdays or they don’t like the particular candidates running this year.

This is a flaw question. Any of these flaws could appear in the answer choices.

(A) is correct! This answer choice speaks to the third flaw above. The author assumes that people’s lack of confidence in the government ENTIRELY causes the decreasing voter turnout. The author fails to address other reasons why people might not show up to vote.

(B) is unsupported. The argument is about people’s BELIEF in the government’s ability to solve problems, not the government’s actual problem-solving capacities.

(C) is unsupported. The argument does not make this illegal negation.

(D) is unsupported. The argument doesn’t state that people have become dissatisfied with politicians, and even if it did, that wouldn’t undermine the claim that people are dissatisfied with the government’s ability to confront important problems.

(E) is unsupported. The argument never discusses how to actually solve important problems. Rather, it makes a claim about voter turnout based on a claim about people’s beliefs. Whether those beliefs are an obstacle to genuine problem-solving lies outside of the scope of the argument.

What do you think, nyabar1212? Does this make sense?

[nbayar1212]

Thanks for this explanation. Yeah after I stepped away from this problem and came back to it E totally doesn't make sense for the reason you stated; the conclusion is about the causes of decreased voter turnout while E is talking about if apathy stops prevents solving problems, which is totally off.

Also great that you went over all the flaws in the stimulus - I didn't pick up on some of those!

[shodges]

I got turned off by (A) because I did not think that "entirely due to a growing conviction that politicians cannot solve the most important problems" = "belief that few important problems can be solved by government action" found in (a)

How does not being able to solve the most important problems = solve few important problems?????

[sumukh09]

I got turned off by (A) because I did not think that "entirely due to a growing conviction that politicians cannot solve the most important problems" = "belief that few important problems can be solved by government action" found in (a)

How does not being able to solve the most important problems = solve few important problems?????

Because if most can't be solved then we can assume that a few can be solved.

The conclusion is that it's "entirely" because people think that government cannot solve most problems meaning there's no other cause for decreasing voter turnout.

The flaw here has to do with the word "entirely," and A addresses that; also, the belief is that the most important problems won't be solved so that implies at least a few of the most can be solved - the two are equivalent statements.

[shodges]

I got turned off by (A) because I did not think that "entirely due to a growing conviction that politicians cannot solve the most important problems" = "belief that few important problems can be solved by government action" found in (a)

How does not being able to solve the most important problems = solve few important problems?????

Because if most can't be solved then we can assume that a few can be solved.

The conclusion is that it's "entirely" because people think that government cannot solve most problems meaning there's no other cause for decreasing voter turnout.

The flaw here has to do with the word "entirely," and A addresses that; also, the belief is that the most important problems won't be solved so that implies at least a few of the most can be solved - the two are equivalent statements.

No you can't. The issue here is that the MOST IMPORTANT problems can't be solved. That doesn't mean the few "important" problems can't be solved. It only means that few of the MOST IMPORTANT can be solved.

Am I looking at this wrong? I thought the language had to be exact. This doesn't seem a fair assumptiong to me.

[nbayar1212]

Whether or not we grant the stimulus the jump from what is required to solve important problems (the first sentence) to the the claim about politicians not being able to solve the most important problem (the last sentence), there is not answer choice that captures this supposed flawed assumption anyways.

You might think that AC B) captures it but it doesn't because 1. politicians are not the only ones involved in political solutions i.e. there can exist political solutions but people still may believe that politicians can't get their act together to solve them AND 2. the conclusion is about what people believe to be true, not necessarily what is factually the case.

The second of the two reasons is probably the most important. Since the entire stimulus revolves around what beliefs lead people to not vote, and since the conclusion is explicitly about that, factual ACs are unlikely to be of any particular relevance to the flaw since irrespective of whats true about the world, people may nonetheless believe something totally different.


Also, claiming that "most Xs can't be solved" is not equal to "a few Xs can be solved." Most is 50% or higher (including 100%). If I tell you that I can't solve most of my problems, then it does not mean that I can solve at least one of my problems. I very well might not be able to solve ANY of my problems which makes the statement "I can't solve most of my problems" true but makes the statement "I can solve a few of my problems" false. To draw the inference sumukh09 was getting at, the stimulus would need to explicitly state "...most but not all..." (which you will sometime actually see in various LR stimuli)".

On a final note, its important to realize that a stimulus can have multiple flaws and the correct AC need not focus on all of them. This seems particularly important given the increase in the number of assumption flaw questions that don't actually ask you to identify a traditional logical fallacy (e.g. straw man, red herrings, composition) but instead a specific assumption - there can be a host of these but the correct choice will point to one. This is a realization thats helped me a lot in the last few months and definitely helped me increase my accuracy on flaw and assumption questions.

Hope this helps.

[shodges]

Whether or not we grant the stimulus the jump from what is required to solve important problems (the first sentence) to the the claim about politicians not being able to solve the most important problem (the last sentence), there is not answer choice that captures this supposed flawed assumption anyways.

You might think that AC B) captures it but it doesn't because 1. politicians are not the only ones involved in political solutions i.e. there can exist political solutions but people still may believe that politicians can't get their act together to solve them AND 2. the conclusion is about what people believe to be true, not necessarily what is factually the case.

The second of the two reasons is probably the most important. Since the entire stimulus revolves around what beliefs lead people to not vote, and since the conclusion is explicitly about that, factual ACs are unlikely to be of any particular relevance to the flaw since irrespective of whats true about the world, people may nonetheless believe something totally different.


Also, claiming that "most Xs can't be solved" is not equal to "a few Xs can be solved." Most is 50% or higher (including 100%). If I tell you that I can't solve most of my problems, then it does not mean that I can solve at least one of my problems. I very well might not be able to solve ANY of my problems which makes the statement "I can't solve most of my problems" true but makes the statement "I can solve a few of my problems" false. To draw the inference sumukh09 was getting at, the stimulus would need to explicitly state "...most but not all..." (which you will sometime actually see in various LR stimuli)".

On a final note, its important to realize that a stimulus can have multiple flaws and the correct AC need not focus on all of them. This seems particularly important given the increase in the number of assumption flaw questions that don't actually ask you to identify a traditional logical fallacy (e.g. straw man, red herrings, composition) but instead a specific assumption - there can be a host of these but the correct choice will point to one. This is a realization thats helped me a lot in the last few months and definitely helped me increase my accuracy on flaw and assumption questions.

Hope this helps.

This doesn't at all address my last post. Though, I'm not even sure if you're replying to me or some one else.

Again, the issue is that THE MOST IMPORTANT problems can't be solved. I have a hard time reconciling that with "few important problems can't be solved." They are not the same thing. It only means that few of the MOST IMPORTANT can be solved. Putting a "the" before important in the stimulus definitely changes the context.

This also has less to do with another answer being wrong, but has to do with proving this answer correct. I don't think it has been.

[nbayar1212]

Hmmmm. I thought about this more last night and I am still not sure what your primary concern is.

It seems like you are trying to point out that there is a fallacy of equivocation going on. I replied and said even if there is, we don't have an AC that captures that flaw so we should take a look at the second flaw which is a fallacy of exclusivity. To me this should settle why A is the correct choice.

Also, I don't know where you are getting the quote "few important problems CAN'T be solved" from. I don't see it in the stimulus nor do I see it in AC A.

[mikuo0628]

Pardon me for reviving an old post, but I was hoping if someone could help me see this straight.

As wordy and incoherent as the stimulus is, I think I get the gist of it:
People believe that important problems can be addressed only by large number of people drastically changing their attitudes AND such attitudinal changes generally do not result from government action ---> People are unenthusiastic about voting.

In short, people believe government action cannot address important questions ---> People are unenthusiastic about voting.

A conclusion was drawn from that:
This growing conviction of politicians cannot solve the most important problems causes decreasing voter turnout.

Now i understand clearly what the problems are with this stimulus as rinagoldfield pointed out: that the conclusion was TOO EXTREME and leaves out other possible causes for the turnout. But I can't make the connection between the belief in (A) and the one in the stimulus.

(A) states decreasing voter turnout is caused by the "belief that few important problems can be solved by government action."

Stimulus states the belief as the growing conviction of politicians cannot solve the most important problems.

How did you equate "cannot solve the most important problems" with "few important problems can be solved"?

[hychu3]

I've observed some very annoying trends in the most recent LSAT's. Namely, a few of the LR passages are more difficult to comprehend only because they are logically weak beyond repair (like this one) and, more importantly, the answer choices are extremely weak as well.

I did choose (A) after much thought, but this takes a lot of jumps that are borderline unacceptable.

For example, as a poster above pointed out, there is that jump from "the most important problems" to "important problems." There is also that jump from "politicians" to "government."

It's a really cheap way to get more people to waste time and fall for incorrect answer choices.

[turketry]

(My take on why the problem with A is not actually a problem)

The argument says this one thing can cause people to become apathetic. The conclusion then states ..."blahblahblah...therefore, that's the sole thing to blame." This is a "one way is the only way" flaw. I went through and eliminated B-E, but like some of you, I also felt uncomfortable with what appears to be a mismatch between (the premise's) "Important problems," (the conclusion's) "THE MOST important problems," and (Answer choice A's) "belief that few important problems."

Rereading the stimulus, I see that people become unenthusiastic if they think that the important problems can’t be solved by the government. The argument’s conclusion says something similar, but different. It says: “cannot solve THE MOST important problems.” That’s a subset of “important problems” and is okay. If they can’t solve important problems, then they can’t solve THE MOST important problems either. (If I don't like pie, I don't like rhubarb pie, blueberry pie, apple pie, or any other kind of pie. If I can't read, I can't read fiction, nonfiction or poetry. If I can't solve problems, I can't solve kind-of-important problems, super-important problems, or even barely-important problems.).

Answer choice A says people have the belief that the “few important problems" can be solved by the government. If people believe that few important problems can be solved, then they believe most important problems cannot be. If someone says "The government can solve most problems," then you cannot assume they don't solve some problems. "Most" can be "all." However you can assume that when someone says, "the government can solve FEW problems," that it means that the government can't solve MOST. They can only solve a few. A few can't be most. So, answer choice A is essentially saying, "presumes that there is no reason for the voter turnout other than the government cannot solve most problems."

This matches the broader category from the argument's premise, the category to which the subset THE MOST important problems belongs. That’s fine. The author is assuming that. The author is assuming that the decreasing turnout is because people think most problems cannot be solved by politicians, including the most important ones.

[seychelles1718]

Is there a language shift between "believing important problems can be addressed only by large numbers of people drastically changing their attitudes and that such attitudinal changes generally do not result from government action" and "conviction that politicians cannot solve the most important problems" ? How do we know if they are the same thing?