Q23 - Perception cannot be a relationship

[alex.chasan]

Had a hard time finding the flaw in this one, but this is how I understand the argument so far:

We have beliefs about material objects we can't perceive, so therefore, when a material object causes us to have beliefs about it, perception is never involved in that process. [If there's a simpler or more accurate rephrasing, I'm all ears . . .]

The flaw, as I understand it, is that although the author has identified "many" instances where a phenomenon does not occur, that doesn't rule out the possibility that it could occur in some instances.

Anyone agree, disagree?

[bbirdwell]

Hi Alex,

Whew! This one is gnarly!

I think you've got a great way of thinking about the argument. My own paraphrase was really close to yours:

We have beliefs about many (some) imperceptible objects.

Therefore, perception is not a relationship between a being and an object that causes that being to have beliefs about it.

And I like what you said about the "phenomenon, etc." That's a valid way of thinking about. Kinda like: Sometimes, something not X doesn't lead to Y. Therefore something X can never be a relationship that causes Y.

The conclusion is almost kind of like a contrapositive-ish sorta thing in relation to the evidence, I think, but the "many" in the evidence, as you pointed out, does not justify the absolute nature of the conclusion. And also, there's some extra stuff (the additional conditional statement) in the conclusion that makes things fuzzy.

That's why (A) is a good match. "Often (sometimes), something not X leads to Y. Therefore, something X can never be a creation for the purpose of Y.

I say the flaw is "sometimes vs never + a dash of extra confusion."

Thoughts?

[alex.chasan]

It's gnarly alright - thanks for your help on this.

Just to make sure I've really got it, is it fair to say that this one ultimately boils down to using a relative to (invalidly) prove an absolute?

I think I got there in a roundabout way, but if I had recognized it as you put it, I could've gotten it faster.

[tamwaiman]

And I like what you said about the "phenomenon, etc." That's a valid way of thinking about. Kinda like: Sometimes, something not X doesn't lead to Y. Therefore something X can never be a relationship that causes Y.

Hi

is there a typo?

Sometimes, something not X does lead to Y. Therefore something X can never be a relationship that causes Y.

[hwsitgoing]

This thread has been really helpful! But I was wondering, could someone explain why B and C are incorrect? I'm having trouble clearly explaining to myself why they're wrong.

[bbirdwell]

It's been a loooong time since I wrote the earlier posts. I'll start fresh with this one.

When I see an argument like this, after i get over the initial "What the??!!", I begin to look for ways to see its structure without trying to really "get it."

The first thing I notice in this one that makes it difficult for me to "get it" is the switch from "imperceptible" in the premise to "perception" in the conclusion.

Many imperceptible objects --> beliefs
therefore:
perception is never when an object causes beliefs.

We might symbolize it this way:
MANY ~P--> B
therefore:
NEVER (P --> B)

If you understand necessary/sufficient talk, our matching choice should mirror the conditional premise and then draw a conclusion that meets the necessary condition and fails to meet the sufficient (thus the flaw in the reasoning).

(A) OFTEN not art -->reactions
therefore: NEVER art --> reactions

(B) EVERYTHING one tries --> some try to prevent
(already not a good match)
therefore: NEVER liberty --> obligation to prevent

(C) SOME problems --> no preparation will help
(already not a good match)
NEVER preparation --> solving problems before they arise
This may be flawed, but not in a way that matches the original.

(D) NEVER qual compare pain and pleasure
(already not a good match)
therefore: NEVER happiness --> pleasure more quant and qual than pain

(E) NEVER humans --> understand principles
(not good so far)
NEVER physics --> investigates principles

Maybe that helps?

[chike_eze]

Many imperceptible objects --> beliefs
therefore:
perception is never when an object causes beliefs.

We might symbolize it this way:
MANY ~P--> B
therefore:
NEVER (P --> B)

...

Thanks for the explanation. It clarified this question even further for me.

Borrowing your symbols, my interpretation was thus...

MANY not P --> B
therefore:
P --> not B

this is like an illegal negation (excluding "many"), i.e.,

not P --> B
therefore:
not-not P --> not B (illegal negation)
P --> not B (the same illegal negation)

like saying "Perception cannot lead to belief in material objects because we believe in material objects we cannot perceive"

the prompt added "many", i.e., "Perception cannot lead to belief in material objects because we believe in many material objects we cannot perceive"

[bbirdwell]

Yeah that sounds cool to me.

[Raiderblue17]

Parallel flaws allow us to attack questions without understanding anyting... ALL we have to do is match the conclusion, if a few match, then we match the premises, or the method.

So our Conclusion is a quantitative one. "MANY" objects that we have beliefs on (Something close to that, youll see why this really doesnt matter what the stimulus says)

So what does each answer say:

A: We often have reactions to things that are not art (Many times we have reactions to things...)

B: No matter what you do people will prevent this (MANY? NOPE!)

C: There are problem so severe, no prep will help (MANY? NOPE)

D: Cannot compare pain and pleasure (MANY NOPE!

E: Finite, world infinite... blah blah blah (MANY? NOPE)

So answer A parallels this by including MAny, yes it's that easy. the test tries to get you worried about complex ideas, but in the end you gotta just play a game of match.

No, I dont know the name of EVERY animal, but I know that an elephant sure doesn't look like a zebra... See this is the trick, find a match, don't look for anything other than a simple match

[nflamel69]

The conclusion you are talking about is actually the premise in the argument, so what you are matching is not the conclusion, but rather the premises

[bramon.elizabeth]

The answer has a mistaken reversal though, right? Whereas the original doesn't. That's the kind of thing that would normally be a red flag on the LSAT, so why is it ok here?

Sorry to resurrect another old post...i just don't want to get questions like this wrong again;)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The conclusion you are talking about is actually the premise in the argument, so what you are matching is not the conclusion, but rather the premises

Good point nflamel69! The first sentence the conclusion.

The answer has a mistaken reversal though, right? Whereas the original doesn't. That's the kind of thing that would normally be a red flag on the LSAT, so why is it ok here?

Sorry to resurrect another old post...i just don't want to get questions like this wrong again;)

Actually, both the argument in the stimulus and the argument in answer choice (A) mistake sufficient conditions for ones that are necessary. The counter example in the evidence would refute the reversal of the stated conditional relationship. For an easier, yet identical example, check out:

PT36, S3, Q19 - My father likes turnips

It's literally the exact same question!

[shodges]

Parallel flaws allow us to attack questions without understanding anyting... ALL we have to do is match the conclusion, if a few match, then we match the premises, or the method.

So our Conclusion is a quantitative one. "MANY" objects that we have beliefs on (Something close to that, youll see why this really doesnt matter what the stimulus says)

So what does each answer say:

A: We often have reactions to things that are not art (Many times we have reactions to things...)

B: No matter what you do people will prevent this (MANY? NOPE!)

C: There are problem so severe, no prep will help (MANY? NOPE)

D: Cannot compare pain and pleasure (MANY NOPE!

E: Finite, world infinite... blah blah blah (MANY? NOPE)

So answer A parallels this by including MAny, yes it's that easy. the test tries to get you worried about complex ideas, but in the end you gotta just play a game of match.

No, I dont know the name of EVERY animal, but I know that an elephant sure doesn't look like a zebra... See this is the trick, find a match, don't look for anything other than a simple match

I see this technique as very dangerous. You can't just declare an answer wrong because of the word "many" not matching up, especially since the LSAT considers "many" to be practically synonymous with "some"

[timsportschuetz]

Whenever I see convoluted questions such as this one, I take a deep breath and find ONE definite item that the argument repeats in the same and/or negated form!

Argument goes from "Perception cannot" to "Imperceptible" (translation: Perception to NOT perception).

On my first pass through the answers, I would only keep A and C (very borderline). All other answers do not follow this formula! E goes form Physics to something completely unrelated. B & D commit the same error.

After a closer inspection of C, you should notice that the evidence does not meet the negation test. Only A goes from "Art" to "Not Art".

I use this technique rarely... however, on difficult questions such as this, it lends itself to solving them very very often!

[amil91]

Parallel flaws allow us to attack questions without understanding anyting... ALL we have to do is match the conclusion, if a few match, then we match the premises, or the method.

So our Conclusion is a quantitative one. "MANY" objects that we have beliefs on (Something close to that, youll see why this really doesnt matter what the stimulus says)

So what does each answer say:

A: We often have reactions to things that are not art (Many times we have reactions to things...)

B: No matter what you do people will prevent this (MANY? NOPE!)

C: There are problem so severe, no prep will help (MANY? NOPE)

D: Cannot compare pain and pleasure (MANY NOPE!

E: Finite, world infinite... blah blah blah (MANY? NOPE)

So answer A parallels this by including MAny, yes it's that easy. the test tries to get you worried about complex ideas, but in the end you gotta just play a game of match.

No, I dont know the name of EVERY animal, but I know that an elephant sure doesn't look like a zebra... See this is the trick, find a match, don't look for anything other than a simple match

I see this technique as very dangerous. You can't just declare an answer wrong because of the word "many" not matching up, especially since the LSAT considers "many" to be practically synonymous with "some"

I agree, many does mean lots of things, but this method can be useful when used correctly. None of the answer choices other than A represent a 'many' or 'some' premise, they are all either absolute or don't make this type of comparison at all making it also not match the stimulus. I was tempted by B because it had the word 'some' in the premise, saying 'some people will try to prevent it,' but that isn't the defining word in that premise. The important part in the premise for B is the 'for no matter.' This is saying that in ALL cases of someone trying to do something, 'some' people will try to prevent it.
C: 'no amount'
D: This is saying we can't compare two things in some way, irrelevant. Stimulus is about comparing many things being a certain way so none of these things can be the opposite of that certain way.
E: Premise doesn't match up with the idea of many vs. all and it's premise is also not very related to the conclusion. Shifts from human understanding to physics not being the science for principles of nature.

For this question on a quick read through, the conclusions for each answer choice generally match the conclusion of the stimulus: X cannot be Y, so at that point I think it is a good idea to compare the next important component of the argument, the premise(s).

[Last_lsat]

But in answer C, " there are problems ... that no ... preparation will help" actually means that there are some "imp-reparable" problems about which we try to solve, parallel to the "imperceptible" material objects about which we have beliefs in the stimulus, so why C is wrong?

[haeeunjee]

(C) doesn't look at non-preparation. (A)'s premises takes the existence of "non-art" (and our aesthetic reaction to it) to be proof that art is never something that produces aesthetic reaction. The stimulus looks at "imperceptible objects."

(C), to be right, should have said something about how there are "non-preparatory actions" that are still "actions directed toward fulfilling needs and solving problems."

[obobob]

@tamwaiman @bbirdwell: can someone confirm this?

And I like what you said about the "phenomenon, etc." That's a valid way of thinking about. Kinda like: Sometimes, something not X doesn't lead to Y. Therefore something X can never be a relationship that causes Y.

Hi

is there a typo?

Sometimes, something not X does lead to Y. Therefore something X can never be a relationship that causes Y.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, that was indeed a typo.

As the poster suggested, he meant:
Sometimes, something not X does lead to Y. Therefore something X can never be a relationship that causes Y.

more specifically
sometimes, something NOT-perceptible leads to beliefs about that object.
Thus perception can't be defined as a relationship that causes beliefs about objects.

[LizaK873]

Posting my interpretation in case it helps.

Analogy,
A boy and a girl being siblings is never a reason why he calls her "sister",
because there are many boys that call girls whom they aren't related, "sisters".

So A fits this.
Since [non-art -- reactions],
there can't be [art -- reactions].


I initially chose C, but here is why it's so painfully wrong:
It would be correct if it said "for there are problems so severe that nobody prepares for it".
But it actually goes off tangent, by saying "no amount of preparation will help". Sure, prep may be useless, but it's still preparation, it's still an action directed towards [...] even if the outcome is failure.
Basically, that last bit should throw you off completely and make you want to cross it out.