LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- WaltGrace1983
-
Thanks Received: 207
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 837
- Joined: March 30th, 2013
- Most Thanked
- Most Thankful
- First Responder
Q2 - Adults have the right to vote
I got this question right but it is highly unsatisfying. Isn't (C), the correct answer, basically a premise booster?
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q2 - Adults have the right to vote
Interesting question, WaltGrace1983.
I think that you may have fallen victim to the phenomenon of mental spackle. Sometimes, when an assumption is so natural, we commit the same error that the author does and actually think it has been stated....when it has not.
For this Necessary Assumption question, let's dig into the core:
The premise(s) never actually said that we want adolescent interests represented! It feel reasonable and logical - so much so, that we come away thinking the stimulus actually said it. But it didn't.
Imagine if the argument were this: The only way to ruin the rug is to spill red wine on it. Therefore, we should spill red wine on it. If you want to ruin the rug that is a great idea! But what if you don't ?
A quick tour of the incorrect answers:
(A) This would certainly help the conclusion, but we don't need that to be true. The argument could still be valid even with a prohibition on infants voting.
(B) "most respects that are important"? We just need them to differ sometimes.
(D) "all the rights" - we're only talking about voting rights!
(E) "have never enjoyed" - what happened in the past doesn't change the argument.
When we engage in mental spackling, we read things into the stimulus (or reading comp passage) that aren't actually there, but feel like the next logical step (and perfectly reasonable). It's an incredibly insidious natural tendency.
Does that help a bit?
I think that you may have fallen victim to the phenomenon of mental spackle. Sometimes, when an assumption is so natural, we commit the same error that the author does and actually think it has been stated....when it has not.
For this Necessary Assumption question, let's dig into the core:
PREMISE: The only way for adolescent interests to be represented is to give them the right to vote.
CONCLUSION: Adolescents should have the right to vote.
The premise(s) never actually said that we want adolescent interests represented! It feel reasonable and logical - so much so, that we come away thinking the stimulus actually said it. But it didn't.
Imagine if the argument were this: The only way to ruin the rug is to spill red wine on it. Therefore, we should spill red wine on it. If you want to ruin the rug that is a great idea! But what if you don't ?
A quick tour of the incorrect answers:
(A) This would certainly help the conclusion, but we don't need that to be true. The argument could still be valid even with a prohibition on infants voting.
(B) "most respects that are important"? We just need them to differ sometimes.
(D) "all the rights" - we're only talking about voting rights!
(E) "have never enjoyed" - what happened in the past doesn't change the argument.
When we engage in mental spackling, we read things into the stimulus (or reading comp passage) that aren't actually there, but feel like the next logical step (and perfectly reasonable). It's an incredibly insidious natural tendency.
Does that help a bit?
-
- coco.wu1993
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 64
- Joined: January 06th, 2014
Re: Q2 - Adults have the right to vote
I have a different view about the conclusion of this argument. The conclusion, in my view, is only by giving adolescents the vote WILL these interests be represented. It never implies that these interests SHOULD be represented. I am really confused about this one.
3 posts Page 1 of 1