Q20 - Anyone who insists that music

[b91302310]

Could anyone explain why the correct answer is (B)?

Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

This is a question we discuss in our 12 session course --

Let's symbolize:

M = music videos
A = art
T = TV

If we strip the subject matter, we can think of the construction of the original as:

Anyone who thinks M is A...
Should think T has a certain relationship with A,
Because T has that relationship with M.

Now let's break down (B) in the same way:

A = avocado
F = fruit
P = pound cake.

Anyone who thinks A is F...
Should think P has a certain relationship with F (lower in fat)
Because P has a certain relationship with A.

Hope that helps!

[Turismo1]

This argument seems like valid argument to me, but other sources are telling me it's invalid. can someone please shed light on this?

[ohthatpatrick]

It's a very reasonable argument, but it's not logically airtight.

In general, it's dangerous to presume that just because Bob believes idea X, and idea X leads to idea Y, that Bob can/does/would/should also believe idea Y.

You have to make assumptions about what Bob knows, whether he knows the connection between X and Y, whether he would agree to believing Y due to its logical relationship to X (i.e. is Bob willing to accept logical relationships? should he be?)

So you can't prove someone else's state of knowledge or hypothetical state of knowledge based on the connection of ideas without assuming some things about the ideas in their head and the rules for how they combine those ideas.

Let me give you a sample argument that may illustrate the looseness of Q20's:

Anyone who insists that Yogurtland serves food should also agree that Yogurtland serves something necessary for survival, since food is necessary for survival.

Sounds logical enough, but I don't want to agree with that.

Hope this helps.

[Turismo1]

Thanks, so the the yogurtland argument you posted would be flawed, and invalid, correct? Given your explanation for why it's not logically airtight, is it even possible to make a valid argument using the same reasoning method even if i make the argument less definite? how about...


It's possible that someone who insists Yogurtland serves food would agree that Yogurtland serves something necessary for survival, since food is necessary for survival.


^ i would imagine that this argument is a little bit more convincing than the original argument, but is still invalid, because it's still making assumptions about what someone should may think because they believe something else. is that correct?

[Carlystern]

Can someone please post the structure for this conditional equation?

Anyone who thinks M --> A
Should think T has a certain relationship with A
Because T has that relationship with M

Im struggling with setting up the structure for this so that I can figure out where the gap is?

I hope I'm making sense.

[Jahma002]

Late post but hope this helps others.
Carly: I am answering your question.

Based on what you provided it would be a relationship type of connection and not conditional.

M->A means in example: country M has a state A.

T has some kind of relationship with A. (I suppose this would be the conclusion based on the structure you provided).
Premise:T is in country M.

So, what conclusion cannot state without further assumption or risking being wrong is stating that T is in State A.

Another example: Apples are fruits and apples are red. Just because oranges are fruits (relation with apples) doesn't make oranges red.