Q18 - There is little plausibility

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type: Main Conclusion

Task: Find the conclusion in the stimulus. Bracket it off. Pick the answer choice that says the closest thing.

Tendencies: On THESE questions, the conclusion is very rarely seen in the last sentence. It almost always comes BEFORE the premise. You will normally find the conclusion
- in the first sentence
- or after a BUT/YET/HOWEVER following someone else's opinion or counterpoint

When the first sentence begins with our author disagreeing with someone, I'm assuming we're getting his conclusion.

SOMEONE ELSE: it's absurd to criticize someone for being critical (after all, YOU'RE criticizing them, you hypocrite)

AUTHOR: What? It's totally legit to criticize someone for being critical.

why?

because being judgmental (i.e. critical) isn't just offering a negative assessment, which we all must do sometimes; being judgmental means having a negative disposition by default.

So the first sentence is the conclusion. The third sentence is also the conclusion, since it's just a restatement of the first sentence. It also says "it's totally legit to call someone out for being too critical". ('Injunctions' are punitive, chastising things)

The 2nd sentence is a concession the author is making ... "I'm not saying NEVER offer a negative assessment. We'll all have to sometimes. I'm saying don't ASSUME a negative assessment prior to really understanding something."

We can go to the answer choices looking for anything that resembles the first or third sentence.

(A) This is the ol' "Last Sentence Trap" on a Main Conclusion question. Don't fall for it. The author's last sentence was his premise.

(B) This is the OPPOSITE of what the author believes. This is the disputed claim.

(C) This looks like a rephrase of the first sentence. Keep it.

(D) This is the second sentence, which was not our conclusion.

(E) This looks like the third sentence. Keep it.

Let's closely compare (C) to the first sentence and (E) to the third sentence.

(E) is word for word what the third said. That's solid!

(C) Changes from saying "there is little plausibility" to "there is some plausibility".

Based on that difference (and E's verbatim lock with the third sentence), we should pick (E).

Let's say that I just pitched you my hypothesis for who's going to win the Super Bowl next year.

Person 1: There's little plausibility to that.

Person 2: There's some plausibility to that.

Did they just react to my hypothesis in identical ways?

No, sir! Person 1 thinks my prediction is garbage. Person 2 thinks I might be on to something.

(In terms of the formal quantity word treatment, you would consider "little" as we do "few" on LSAT, meaning "49% - 0%")

Hope this helps.


#officialexplanation

[bermudask8er7]

Hi,

Can you explain the stimulus? I find the argument and reasoning in the stimulus to be hard to understand.

Thanks

[aileenann]

Sure thing!

The first step I'd recommend is a rough translation of each sentence into easier English, just breaking it down one at a time. Keep in mind that doing this may not perfectly preserve the nuances, but it's of course important to start with understanding the basic gist of the argument.

I'd start off like this:

Sentence 1: It is not absurd to criticize someone for being critical.

Sentence 2: People have to judge each other, sometimes unfavorably.

Sentence 3: However, it's good not to be judgmental.

Sentence 4: To be judgmental usually means you have jumped the gun in your judgments of someone.

Notice that the argument is playing between judging and being judgmental. These are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, the author is telling us that judging is basically ok and normal but that being judgmental is not such a good thing.

Now as far as the question asking us to identify the main conclusion, it could be a bit dicey here insofar as Sentence 1 and Sentence 3 both seem to express opinions (as contrasted with Sentences 2 & 4 which just express facts in the universe of this LSAT argument). It could be difficult to choose between 1 & 3, but we don't even have to here. The correct answer - (E) - is 3 but there is no answer that is 1, although there are two: (B) and (C) which mirror but negate 1.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to follow up if more clarification would be helpful!

[bermudask8er7]

Thanks! The explanation was very helpful. I understand most of it now.
What role does sentence 1 play in the argument? Why is it needed?

[cyruswhittaker]

This was a confusing question due to the argument structure. I narrowed it down to E but it took time. It also makes more sense on this one to think about re-arranging the premises, and putting E at the end. Makes more sense that is where the argument is going than the opinion in the first sentence.

[opulence2001]

I'm noticing that I tend to have trouble with these type of questions. Just to clarify then...when the question stem asks

"Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion drawn in the argument?"

Is the conclusion ALREADY in the stimulus? Or are we supposed to infer from the stimulus a conclusion. I've been treating these type of questions as if a conclusion is to be drawn, and so when I see answers that repeat what was already in the stimulus I assume it's wrong because I am thinking the conclusion is not in it.

I just need confirmation...so I can approach these questions differently.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The conclusion is sometimes stated and sometimes implied. Generally the conclusion is implied in a way similar to the following example:

Some scientists claim that genetically modified foods will solve the world's food shortage one day. This is clearly false, since _____ .

In this case the conclusion is, "this is clearly false." But it could be interpreted to say that genetically modified foods will not solve the world's food shortage one day."

In other situations, the conclusion will be stated. You're looking to find the conclusion within the argument, and then look for that claim rephrased in the answer choice. Keep in mind that many answer choices will be claims from within the argument. But if the claim represents a premise, intermediate conclusion, opposing point, or background piece of information, it too will not be the correct answer.

Does that answer your question?

[opulence2001]

It does!

From now on I am going to approach the answers that re-phrase sentences from the stimulus much differently.

Thanks a lot!

[geverett]

If the first sentence was listed out word for word as an answer choice would it be correct?

[goriano]

If the first sentence was listed out word for word as an answer choice would it be correct?

I'd like to know this too, if possible. It seems that there are two unconnected conclusions in the stimulus.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The first sentence is not a conclusion. I can see why it looks like one though. It does seem like the there's two arguments, and the author is trying to have it both ways.

That's not exactly happening here. The author is making a concession in the first paragraph. He says, "look, while being critical is sometimes going to happen [when you assess a situation negatively], generally there's good reason not to do so."

So it's more like an opposing point to the author's, that the author concedes. The author does provide evidence for why he's conceding, but that still wouldn't make it the author's main point. Perhaps an intermediate conclusion?

What do you guys think?

[shaynfernandez]

The first sentence says "there is little plausibility to the claim that it is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical"

Answer choice C says: "there is SOME plausibility to the claim that it is absurd to criticize anyone for being critical."

If there is little plausibility that its absurd there is in fact SOME, so I disagree that premise one isn't mentioned in the answer choices at all

[joseph.m.kirby]

I think (C) is an awkward language shift of the claim made in the stimulus.

For example:

Example Stimulus: It is not very likely that it will rain today. There are no clouds in the sky.

What is the author's main point?

(C) There is some likeliness that it could rain.

When reading this type of answer, does it seem like it's the author's main point? No! The answer does not connect with the evidence provided.

Similarly,

There is little plausibility to the claim that it is always bad to criticize people being critical. People need to assess each other and sometimes these assessments will be bad.

(C) There is some plausibility to the claim that it is always bad to criticize people being critical.

Does (C) seem like the author's main point? Not really. Let's put (C) into the argument.

There is some plausibility to the claim that it is always bad to criticize being critical. People need to assess each other and sometimes these assessments will be bad.

Does the argument make sense? Not really. (C) is not the same as the claim in the stimulus and it is not the main point of the argument.

(E) FTW!

[evelynz]

The first sentence is not a conclusion. I can see why it looks like one though. It does seem like the there's two arguments, and the author is trying to have it both ways.

That's not exactly happening here. The author is making a concession in the first paragraph. He says, "look, while being critical is sometimes going to happen [when you assess a situation negatively], generally there's good reason not to do so."

So it's more like an opposing point to the author's, that the author concedes. The author does provide evidence for why he's conceding, but that still wouldn't make it the author's main point. Perhaps an intermediate conclusion?

What do you guys think?

My gut feeling was (E) and I confirmed by eliminating the wrong choices. But when I use the THEREFORE test to see which is the main conclusion, I feel the first sentence is actually the main conclusion.

THEREFORE test 1:
It is not absurd to criticize anyone for being critical. THEREFORE, there is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental.

THEREFORE test 2:
There is wisdom behind the injunction against being judgmental. THEREFORE, it is not absurd to criticize anyone for being critical.

I feel the sentence in test 2 seems to make more sense...

Please help.

[sumukh09]

Here's how I think this problem should be approached. The first two sentences, imo, just serve as background information. The argument makes a shift from talking about the plausibility to the claim of criticizing someone for being critical and essentially criticizing someone for being judgmental; "injunction" could be interpreted as criticism towards being judgmental similar to how you can criticize for being critical.

Essentially, the author speaks about two different, yet similar, topics ie) being judgmental and being critical. They're not the same thing but they're similar enough to warrant a comparison given the context of the argument.

The premise, conclusion relationship, or the argument core is as follows:

being judgmental means to assess someone negatively prior to a serious effort at understanding ----> there's wisdom behind discouraging the behaviour of being judgmental

Abstractly, what this argument does is say: it's not so smart to do this [criticize anyone for being critical] because of this [obviously people must assess people and not all will be positive]; BUT it might be a smart to do THIS [injunction against being judgmental] because of this [being judgmental means assessing someone negatively prior to a serious effort at understanding].

To break this one down even more, we're comparing two concepts, being judgmental and being critical, and contrasting them based on what makes the two behaviours distinct - but the real issue here is about the behaviour of being judgmental because that's just the direction the argument takes.

[leroyjenkins]

I think E is a very strong answer for this Q.

But I think answer C brings up a general LSAT question:

On the LSAT, if we are told there is little of something, does that include the possibility that there is none of it?

(i.e. in the same way that the "some" could include "all")

[Alvanith]

This one really gives me a headache...and this is my take:

The argument is like:
It makes some sense to be critical sometimes (Sentence 1) because people have to assess (S2), but being judgmental is way too much (S3) since it is so bad (S4).

S3 should be the main conclusion.
S4 is the direct support for the main conclusion.
S1 and S2 combined to make a concession, but not the main point of the whole argument.

Any thoughts?

[Mab6q]

Awesome explanation Patrick! Here are some thoughts that I had.

This question is number 18 in the section, the answer choice probably won't be as cut and dry as we would like.

We probably don't know for certain that the first and third sentences are exactly the same thing, but they do seem to be similar. Saying that something is not plausible is close to saying that not doing that think would be wise.

For C, as was mentioned above, little does not equate to some! Period! You can't let that slide on the LSAT.

[ldfdsa]

1st sentence says it's not right to be critical, 2nd says roughly the same thing, being judgmental makes one unhappy. but the 3rd sentence seems also says critical is not right, and it begins with "however" !?

however should lead to a changing of ideas, but why not here?

For it to make sense, I have to think it this way: the key word is wisdom. wisdom means don't take it too simple, the injunction is only against one type of judgmental, which is negativity-loaded, as in 1st and 2nd sentences. the inspiring type judgmental is ok. The last sentence explains why.