Q20 - Evidence suggests that we can

[timmydoeslsat]

I was very curious to see an instructor's opinion on the word choice of the correct answer (D).

I picked this one because the other ones were terrible, but I think this wording is problematic.

It is possible to write a best-selling novel.

It is possible to write one that appeals to the critics.

The "one" in the second sentence is referring to novel.

However, could you not say that this "one" refers to the idea of "best-selling novel."

In which case, if you view the referential word as the second type, this answer choice is not logically the same.

It was at this point, that I had to choose this choice, although I did so with this referential word being a problem.

It seems that we really do not know what "one" refers to in this context. It could either be "novel" or "best-selling novel."

[noah]

Because of parallelism, we can pretty safely assume that "one" is taking the place of "novel" since it's being used in parallel to "best-selling novel." But, more importantly for LSAT prep, (D) is the best answer.

In case someone needs an explanation, here goes:

The stimulus' structure is: we can make X with Y and we can make X with Z, so we can make X with Y and Z. The flaw is pretty clear - just because we can do each one doesn't mean we can do them together! Maybe Y and Z can't go together (or, in this case, maybe a safe car means a heavy car, which means a car that is NOT fuel efficient).

(D) has this same structure, but with best-selling and appealing to critics.

(A) has a mismatched conclusion.

(B) has a mismatched conclusion. "Because" has no place in there!

(C) has an OK conclusion, but we need to learn that both situations are possible, not that two people say they're happening.

(E) has a mismatched conclusion - we're not predicting there will be something, we're just concluding that something is possible. In (E), the idea that it's possible is a premise.

[xareign]

I also had some difficulty with this one. One thing that threw me off is that I conflated boolean-style inference rules of natural deduction with messy English and thought that from the statement X, and from the statement Y, we can infer X&Y. My grave mistake is that this move presupposes that we have a proof of both X and Y prior to the application of the rule. How one can get a proof of the statement "we can manufacture a car with twice the fuel efficiency of a normal car" is beyond me.

So, I was kind of looking for a valid argument while at the same time looking for a flawed argument.....this massive confusion led me to C.

Fortunately, I know what I did wrong now.

[daiqiuyang]

For the answer choice (D), "gains a large readership" not necessarily equals to "best-selling" in my opinion.

So can anyone explain why (D) is still right?