Q20 - Columnist: Almost anyone can be

[LSAT-Chang]

HellO! Could someone go through this one with me?

So the conclusion is that almost anyone can be an expert because there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know.

I am not quite sure what role the next sentence "anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area - whatever those may be - is an expert" plays but I just diagrammed it for the sake of diagramming:

manage to convince some people of qualifications in area --> expert

So from here.. I was lost. I didn't see the gap, so I just went to the answer choices, and was able to eliminate (B) and (E). When I read (C), I was tempted since I thought that you had to assume it in order for the second sentence that I diagrammed above to be true but I eliminated it because I thought it didn't really touch upon the conclusion that almost anyone can be an expert.. I was down to (A) and (D), and I first picked (D), but then later realized that it was the reversed of my diagram above, so then I marked (A), but I didn't quite understand why. DOes it have something to do with the "almost anyone can convince"? I'm confuzzled

[timmydoeslsat]

Yeah, here again, this isn't so much of a diagramming issue as it is a seeing the big picture issue. It will come in time I promise. Keep doing what you are doing because you WILL evolve and say "I don't even need to diagram this!"

My thought process when I just saw this problem

[i]Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no guidelines that determine what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his qualifications in whatever area is an expert.

Hmm, this conclusion is almost anyone can be an expert. I know that this is a sufficient assumption question. I see that the conclusion of almost anyone can be an expert has no direct link from the premises so I am going to need something from the idea of either

1) No guidelines

2) Mange to convince some people ---> You are expert

In my head I see this visual picture, much like a core:


No guidelines
+
Manage to convince some people of your qualifications ---> Expert
__________________________________________________
Almost anyone can be an expert


Answer choices:

A) Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area.

I can use this!

What this argument is lacking is that we don't know how many people can manage to convince some people! We are concluding that almost anyone can be an expert because of 1) No guidelines 2) Manage to convince some people of your qualifications--->Expert

We don't know how many people can do that! What if only person is capable of such a feat, such as Matt Sherman. If that is the case, then can we conclude that almost anyone can be an expert? No!

This assumption in answer choice A tells us that almost anyone can convince these people! That means that almost anyone can be an expert! We can get to that necessary condition given in the premise.


B) Cannot lead to almost anyone can be an expert. This is describing a quality of some experts. This may be true, but will not allow us to conclude this conclusion given.

C) We do not know this. This stimulus leaves open the possibility that you do not have to actually be qualified. As long as you can convince someone of your qualifications, you are an expert! This definitely would not lead to almost anyone can be an expert.

D) This is a sufficient/necessary switch/reversal. We know what can lead to being an expert, but that does not mean that being an expert requires such a thing. Eliminate.

E) Does not lead us to almost anyone. This answer choice has that feel of "overkill" which we LOVE in sufficient assumption answer choices. However, this one does not overkill in the right areas! Eliminate!

I will be glad to help with any questions you may have!

[LSAT-Chang]

We don't know how many people can do that! What if only person is capable of such a feat, such as Matt Sherman. If that is the case, then can we conclude that almost anyone can be an expert? No!

haha nice example! and thanks for the great explanation above!

[bbirdwell]

Manage to convince some people of your qualifications ---> Expert
__________________________________________________
Almost anyone can be an expert

This kind of thinking/diagramming is SO helpful on questions like these. What's the important part about the conclusion? Almost anyone

What's the foundation of the evidence about experts? Manage to convince

There's your gap. You need to connect those two concepts.

And now, timmydoeslsat:

We don't know how many people can do that! What if only person is capable of such a feat, such as Matt Sherman. If that is the case, then can we conclude that almost anyone can be an expert? No!

Why? Why not two experts? Why does the Shermanator get the nicknames, the kudos, the forum mentionings? I don't get it

j/k. Cheers you guys! Here's to your continued improvement...

[bbirdwell]

This discussion has me thinking about diagramming and the whole discussion regarding what is or isn't a "diagram" and whether or not to "make one." Keep your eyes open for an mlsat blog post on this topic...

Meantime, I realized that I actually see the argument like the diagram below. And I mean, I actually read the original text in this fashion as I read it. This is the kind of thinking that is rewarded on the LSAT, and the PROCESS of "learning to diagram" is a very helpful tool in developing that kind of thinking.

Manage to convince ---> expert
______________________________
Almost anyone --> expert


The vast majority of arguments on the LSAT are minor alterations on this theme.

[LSAT-Chang]

This discussion has me thinking about diagramming and the whole discussion regarding what is or isn't a "diagram" and whether or not to "make one." Keep your eyes open for an mlsat blog post on this topic...

Manage to convince ---> expert
______________________________
Almost anyone --> expert


The vast majority of arguments on the LSAT are minor alterations on this theme.

I looked back at the problem, and I totally see your diagram. It looks a lot easier now that we have it diagrammed out. I will definitely look out for that mlsat blog post since I am most of the time unsure whether or not I should diagram and I think I waste a lot of my time just "thinking" about it.

[shaynfernandez]

Brian I have noticed this pattern a ton!

A --> B
______
C --> B

Assuming:
C--> A

But how would we characterize the flaw?

Would the flaw be that the assumption characterizes A as necessary for C even though all we are told is that it's sufficient for B?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're right about that common form, although it doesn't normally show up in Flaw question in a way that would require describing it in abstract terms.

Let's use an example of a
A ---> B
_______
C ---> B
argument.

People from Akron invariably love Lebron James. Thus, Charlie must love Lebron James.

Clearly, we're assuming Charlie is from Akron. (C --> A)

How would this look in a Flaw answer choice?

Here's 3 possibilities:
a) presumes, without providing justification, that Charlie is from Akron.
b) fails to consider that Charlie may be from a city other than Akron.
c) takes for granted that if one condition leads to a certain outcome then some second, unrelated, condition also leads to that outcome.

I think you'd be more likely to see a Flaw question deal with this type of flaw:
A ---> B
C ---> B
______
Thus, C--->A (or A--->C ... makes no difference)

a) fails to consider that two conditions may each be able to produce the same result without being sufficient to produce the other condition

Let me know if you have questions on this.

[jm_leconte]

Ive made tremendous progress with necessary assumption questions! HOWEVER Im having serious trouble with sufficient assumption questions. Cannot grasp for the life of me Why answer choice D is incorrect. The good news.. I was between choice A & D but pulled the trigger on D & now I'm dead. Please resuscitate.


Thanks in advance!

[timmydoeslsat]

Ive made tremendous progress with necessary assumption questions! HOWEVER Im having serious trouble with sufficient assumption questions. Cannot grasp for the life of me Why answer choice D is incorrect. The good news.. I was between choice A & D but pulled the trigger on D & now I'm dead. Please resuscitate.


Thanks in advance!

With sufficient assumption questions, the only goal is to make certain the conclusion can follow from the evidence.

Our argument is like this:

Almost anyone can be X. For anyone that can do Y is an X.

We are assuming something about the frequency in which people can do activity Y. The conclusion of "almost anyone can be X" would follow if we knew for a fact that almost anyone can do Y.

The problem with choice D is that it tells us a necessary fact of experts. This does not give us enough evidence to make a conclusion about how many people can convince others of their qualifications. This tells us that it is necessary to be able to do this to be an expert, but can almost anyone do this action? This answer choice leaves this question unanswered.