Q18 - Despite the efforts of a small

[gyfirefire]

Hello all,

i got this one wrong by choosing (C). I am not sure if it is because i equated "not a good idea" to "disapprove of the attempt". Or am i missing something else here?

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot ahead!

[bbirdwell]

So here are the facts:

1. Majority of students are unaware of the attempt to unionize
2. Of the ones aware, most believe the union would not represent their interests

Conclusion: Students should not unionize, because most of them disapprove.

(C) doesn't quite match up with argument. The author never says that unionizing is "not a good idea," but rather merely states that the students should not unionize because most of them disapprove.

Think of it this way. If I say "The class should not have ice cream because most of them don't want ice cream," this doesn't mean that I myself think ice cream is a bad idea.

(E) is a better match, not only because it actually contains the word "disapproval," but because it gets at the heart of what's happening. Most people don't know about it, and our author concludes that they "disapprove."

[alex.chasan]

I thought this one was pretty clever. . .they often introduce errors based on flawed part-to-whole comparisons, but in this case it's kind of a red herring. . .

Moreover, isn't there also a flaw of equivocation here because, in the sub-conclusion when the author states "majority of them obviously disapprove of the attempt" the "majority" he's referring to is unclear?

As I see it, that's just another red herring though, because whether you read that "majority" to be the majority of the whole who are unaware or the sub-group who *are* aware but just don't think it will work, the reasoning is *still* *most* vulnerable on the grounds of that detail creep.

While there are those who are unaware and those who doubt the potential efficacy, neither one of those groups can be said to "obviously disapprove" for those reasons alone.

[mrudula_2005]

While there are those who are unaware and those who doubt the potential efficacy, neither one of those groups can be said to "obviously disapprove" for those reasons alone.

Good point. But those who are unaware cannot be said to have "mere lack of approval" either - they just don't fit into any category.

this argument is just so weird to me. Isn't the main flaw that the author says "since the majority of them obviously disapprove of the attempt" when in fact, we learn in line 2 of the stimulus that the majority are unaware! So I thought the flaw was that the author presumes, without justification, that the students that are unaware of the attempt disapprove of the attempt.

(E) totally sidesteps this main flaw and still leaves the argument with a huge gaping flaw.

which begs the question: in flaw questions, is it okay for the correct answer to totally leave the major flaw unaddressed?

[pathosj]

How about (D)? If there are other reasons for unionizing, couldn't that be grounds to say that the graduate students should unionize despite not pursuing their interests?

One reason may be something that is necessary, but unpopular such as increasing/guaranteeing pay for graduate students' work with professors, which increases competition for such positions.

[jcl2153]

this argument is just so weird to me. Isn't the main flaw that the author says "since the majority of them obviously disapprove of the attempt" when in fact, we learn in line 2 of the stimulus that the majority are unaware! So I thought the flaw was that the author presumes, without justification, that the students that are unaware of the attempt disapprove of the attempt.

Same. Though I certainly saw the flaw in translating lack of approval into active disapproval, the flaw in translating "the majority of [graduate] students [are] unaware" into "the majority of [graduate] students obviously disapprove" seemed to me to be the major flaw. The way I saw it was this... If the latter of these isn't a flaw, then I'm not sure how we'd even be able to translate (albeit in error) the lack of approval even into active disapproval, as the group indicating lack of approval (most of those who are aware) is not the same as the group indicating, as the argument claims, active disapproval (most of the graduate students). If we're not able to identify group A as translating into group B, then how can we identify a claim about group A as erroneously translating into a different claim about group A when that different claim in fact applies to group B?

[farhadshekib]

While there are those who are unaware and those who doubt the potential efficacy, neither one of those groups can be said to "obviously disapprove" for those reasons alone.

Good point. But those who are unaware cannot be said to have "mere lack of approval" either - they just don't fit into any category.

this argument is just so weird to me. Isn't the main flaw that the author says "since the majority of them obviously disapprove of the attempt" when in fact, we learn in line 2 of the stimulus that the majority are unaware! So I thought the flaw was that the author presumes, without justification, that the students that are unaware of the attempt disapprove of the attempt.

(E) totally sidesteps this main flaw and still leaves the argument with a huge gaping flaw.

which begs the question: in flaw questions, is it okay for the correct answer to totally leave the major flaw unaddressed?

The correct answer does address the major flaw in the argument.

As you pointed out, sentence 1 states: "the majority [most] of graduate students...remain unaware of the attempts [to unionize]".

The author, then, discusses students who are aware of the unionization attempts (i.e. a minority of students). She suggests that most of these students believe that a union would not represent their interests, or that it would fail to effectively pursue them.

The conclusion, however, is that the grad students should NOT unionize, because the majority ( the first group of students) obviously disapprove of the attempt.

However, as you mentioned, the majority of graduate students are unaware of these attempts at unionization.

So (E) is correct. The author blurs the distinction between a lack of approval and active disapproval (you cannot actively disapprove of something that you are not aware of...)

[ivankrasnov88]

I'd like to second pathosj's question:

with regards to D, why is this not the flaw?
If there exist other reasons for unionizing, then doesn't the argument in fact ignore this possibility?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (D) is really interesting and it's particularly tempting if you don't have a really clear sense of the argument.

Most students are unaware of the attempt to unionize and of those who are aware the majority do not believe a union would be an effective advocate for graduate students.

Therefore... Most students disapprove of the attempt to unionize.

Therefore... The graduate students should not unionize.

The tricky part is seeing that there is a subsidiary conclusion. That the claim that "most students disapprove of the attempt to unionize" is suggested to follow from the initial claims. The language cue that tipped me off that we have a subsidiary conclusion is that word "obviously" - a common language cue used be the LSAT writer to indicate a conclusion. It's not 100% consistent, but it is a highly repeated pattern on their part.

Once you see that we have two arguments: the evidence that supposedly establishes the subsidiary conclusion, and the supposed main conclusion that follows from the subsidiary one, we have a better chance of identifying the flaw.

If it were true that most students disapprove of unionizing, the main conclusion is not bad. So the error is in getting from the initial claims to the intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion. The argument has not established that most students disapprove of unionizing - and answer choice (E) does a great job of expressing that error.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) describes a common error of reasoning, but not one occurring in this argument. There is no outstanding practice used as the basis for a conclusion that is apparently consistent.
(B) correctly describes something going on in the argument, but the argument didn't conclude anything about the reasons for the students' disapproval, just that they do disapprove.
(C) would correctly describe the error if there was no intermediate conclusion and the argument had concluded that the students should not unionize on the grounds that few students are aware of the attempts to unionize.
(D) is similar to answer choice (C) in that it doesn't express an error between the evidence and the subsidiary conclusion or between the subsidiary conclusion and the main conclusion. It does describe a reason why the main conclusion may not be true, but does not describe a gap in the reasoning between the evidence used to support the main conclusion (a majority of students disapprove of the attempt to unionize) and the main conclusion (the students should not in fact unionize).

Hope that helps!

[goriano]

It does describe a reason why the main conclusion may not be true, but does not describe a gap in the reasoning between the evidence used to support the main conclusion (a majority of students disapprove of the attempt to unionize) and the main conclusion (the students should not in fact unionize).

I have a question about this explanation for (D). Doesn't (D) describe a gap in reasoning between evidence and the main conclusion? You cited one of the pieces of evidence (majority of students disapprove) but you left out the part about the union not effectively pursuing graduate interests, which too is a piece of evidence.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I have a question about this explanation for (D). Doesn't (D) describe a gap in reasoning between evidence and the main conclusion? You cited one of the pieces of evidence (majority of students disapprove) but you left out the part about the union not effectively pursuing graduate interests, which too is a piece of evidence.

Good question Goriano! The problem is that the fact that the union might not effectively pursue graduate interests is not a premise that supports the main conclusion. Instead it supports the intermediate conclusion that the students disapprove of the attempt to union. The intermediate conclusion is then used to support the main conclusion that the students should not unionize. When we're looking to describe an error of reasoning we need to ask ourselves, what are they trying to prove? And why do they say it's true?

The argument does not say that because the union might not pursue graduate interests the students should not unionize. Instead it tries to establish that most students disapprove of unionizing. Why? Because most students are unaware of the attempts to unionize and that those students who are aware believe that it will not effectively represent their interests. The problem here is that just because most students are unaware that does not mean that they disapprove.

The main conclusion is that students should not unionize. Why? Because most students disapprove of unionizing. This argument is not so bad. If it were true that most students disapprove of unionizing the claim that the students should not unionize would actually be quite strong.

So the gap in the reasoning is not between that the union might not effectively lobby for the students and the students should not unionize. This is not the reason the argument puts forward for the main conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[Dkrajewski30]

Good stuff, guys. I clearly see how D mischaracterizes the argument, and it's wrong mainly because of that. However, upon reviewing this one (I originally selected D), I eliminated D for another reason.

I simply think that D contradicts the argument, as the author clearly does acknowledge that there may be other reasons for unionizing aside from effectively pursuing student interests. The author explicitly acknowledges in the 2nd sentence that having student interests adequately represented is one such other reason. So no, he doesn't just cite effectively pursuing interests as *the* reason to unionize, he also cites the one about representing interests (in addition to the reason given as the driving force of his argument - having student approval).

So this is a roundabout way to eliminate it, and it probably still shows a lack of complete understanding of the argument, but this is how I justified eliminating D before coming to the more accurate understanding of the argument (the lack of approval justifying no unionizing). Being so focused on D during the test and immediately after, it's clear I mischaracterized things.

[rikky.brown]

I'm confused about how to discern between B and E. I was totally aware of the flaw, but I thought that "blurring the lines' called for too much by way of assumption. I thought "failing to include alternative explanations....disapproval" meant that the argument never actually stated why the disapproved.

[maryadkins]

Tricky question!

The problem that immediately jumps out to me with (B) is that we're really not concerned with WHY anyone disapproves of anything. This argument isn't about reasons people want what they want. It's about numbers: who disapproves, how many people is that, and does that warrant not unionizing?

(E) captures this problem by saying, hey, not being AWARE does not mean they "obviously disapprove." "Blurs the distinction" just means the same thing as "mixes up" or "confuses with" or fails to distinguish between." It could say any of these and they would mean the same thing on the LSAT.

Hope this helps.

[seychelles1718]

I have a question for ohthatpatrick

In previous posts, you've explained that we can test the Flaw ACs that start with "ignores/overlooks the possibility, fails to consider..." by treating them as Weaken ACs. I think D could weaken the argument by making the conclusion less likely. Although I eliminated D and picked E during the test because I knew that D doesn't describe the flaw of the argument, I'd like your advice on how to differentiate tempting flaw ACs that only weaken the argument from the right answers that both weaken and describe the flaw. Thank you for your help!

[ohthatpatrick]

GREAT find!

This is indeed one of the exceptions to my "rule". I think I've found only 2 or 3 at this point, where there's an answer that WOULD kinda weaken, but it has nothing to do with any reasoning/assumptions being made, so there's a better answer.

Despite these rare exceptions, I still find my "rule" useful enough to espouse, but it's good that you, like me, are now aware it's not inviolate gospel.

(D) really IS still a legitimate flaw answer choice, but since the question stem is about how the argument is MOST vulnerable to criticism, LSAT expects us to prioritize the egregious flaw that got the author to the intermediate conclusion.

(D) is about a flaw going from the intermediate conclusion to the final
"Since most disapprove, they should not unionize".

But (E) is more about the crazy leap from
"Since most grad students are unaware of the attempt to unionize, most grad students (obviously) disapprove of the attempt".

Because that's earlier in the reasoning and because it's a more shameful, confusing move, I think LSAT expects us to prioritize that flaw.

It's hard to RANK the relative severity of flaws, which is why it's so unusual to see more than one valid flaw in the answer choices.

Let's just proceed with the confidence (or desperate hope) that if we see more than one valid flaw, there will be one that is CLEARLY more important / more integral to the reasoning / more likely to be rewarding what LSAT wants us to notice.

This happens rarely, but more often, on Strengthen/Weaken questions. Sometimes there are two answers that Strengthen or Weaken, but one is much stronger or much more about poking holes in the reasoning.

[BarryM800]

This is a tricky question. Guess the tipoff is the argument's profuse usage of quantifiers: "a small minority of graduate students," "the majority of graduate students," "most of those," "the majority of them." I understand the rationale for (E), but I mistakenly chose (D). I prephrased the flaw as "lack of proof to prove the opposite conclusion." Specifically, the fact that most of the minority of students, who are aware and make the efforts to unionize, could not justify unionization was used to draw the conclusion that the students should not unionize. This is captured by (D) pointing out that there might be other reasons for unionizing. What is wrong with this line of reasoning?

Additionally, the second sentence states "Most of those who are aware believe that a union would not represent their interests or that, if it did, it would not effectively pursue them." I interpret this as insufficient reason for unionization. In other words, unionization would not achieve these good things. However, I'm reluctant to interpret this as "disapproval of unionization," which would require reasonings like some bad things would result from unionization. To equivocate these two, we would need an assumption that if you can't find a good reason to do something then that's the best reason for not doing it, which is the lack of proof fallacy itself. Any thoughts? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

Let's try to clarify answer choice (D) a little. I think if the conclusion just said "grad students shouldn't unionize," (D) might be a good answer. But that's not what it says. It says "grad students shouldn't unionize because the majority obviously disapprove." That extra bit makes the conclusion more narrow, meaning larger issues with whether or not they should unionize are not relevant.

For ex: "Broccoli tastes funny. Therefore I shouldn't eat it." The conclusion is just that I shouldn't eat it, meaning the problem is that it ignores all the possible reasons why maybe I should eat it (ie, it's good for me!).

That's different than: "Broccoli tastes funny. Therefore I shouldn't eat it since I obviously hate it." Now the conclusion is that I shouldn't eat it because I hate it, and there's a pretty big gap between "tastes funny" and "I hate it."

[jeremyk607]

Let's try to clarify answer choice (D) a little. I think if the conclusion just said "grad students shouldn't unionize," (D) might be a good answer. But that's not what it says. It says "grad students shouldn't unionize because the majority obviously disapprove." That extra bit makes the conclusion more narrow, meaning larger issues with whether or not they should unionize are not relevant.

For ex: "Broccoli tastes funny. Therefore I shouldn't eat it." The conclusion is just that I shouldn't eat it, meaning the problem is that it ignores all the possible reasons why maybe I should eat it (ie, it's good for me!).

That's different than: "Broccoli tastes funny. Therefore I shouldn't eat it since I obviously hate it." Now the conclusion is that I shouldn't eat it because I hate it, and there's a pretty big gap between "tastes funny" and "I hate it."

totally agree

as it stands, the argument cites a 'majority-rule' as the main reason to accept the recommendation 'not to unionize'. other reasons in support of the opposing side might exist, but it lacks logical force since majority rules

there could exist more reasons to unionize than not to unionize, but what does it matter when the author believes that the majority dictates the action?

if there's a town vote to stop the construction of an amazon shipping center, and whether to stop or continue construction is determined by majority-rule, and majority says don't build the shipping center, there could be a million and one reasons to build it...who cares. majority doesn't want it