Q23 - S: People who are old enough

[opulence2001]

For this question I narrowed the answers down to D and E and thankfully choose D because T argues why people old enough to fight are not necessarily old enough to vote- S's argument relies on the premise that they are.

Could someone explain however why E is wrong. I would like to be able to knock it out rather than choose the correct answer because it seems "more correct."

I'm not sure because T's response leads to a conclusion opposite that of S. Is E wrong because T presents a series of premises and so by choosing E we are making an inference that has not explicitly been made?

[bbirdwell]

I have two thoughts here.

One, get used to choosing the answer that is more correct without necessarily eliminating them all -- it will happen all the time.

Two, T does not actually reach the opposite conclusion, that "the government should NOT recognize 17 yr olds' right to vote." T doesn't say anything about the government or 17 yr olds.

[goriano]

I'm having a bit of trouble with this one, as I actually eliminated (D) during my first pass at the answer choices.

S's "claim" on which his conclusion is based is that people who are OLD ENOUGH to fight are OLD ENOUGH to vote.

T does not seem to dispute this claim. Rather, T is just saying that fighting and voting have different requirements. So T is actually leaving open the possibility that being old enough to fight is sufficient to establish that one is old enough to vote!

Furthermore, T seems to be setting up a conditional sentence in the first line:
"S's argument is good ONLY IF fighting and voting are the same." But T argues that they aren't the same, triggering the contrapositive.

Am I missing something?

[goriano]

Any of the LSAT Geeks want to weigh in on this one?

[laurakped]

An idea:

S's conclusion is an analogy.
The evidence in an analogy is that two things CAN be compared.
T attacks S’s analogy by saying the two parts of the analogy (fighting, voting) can’t be compared.
So we can say that T attacks S's ev.

Thoughts? Correct or off base?

[magnusgan]

S's claim: General principle
Anyone who is old enough to fight a war is old enough to vote for the people who make decisions about war and peace.

S's conclusion: Specific application of general principle
17 year olds should be allowed to vote.

Symbolically:
(Able to fight --> able to vote) --> 17 yo able to vote
A --> B

T refutes the claim by making a distinction between fighting and voting. T's conclusion is that being able to fight does not automatically grant the fighter the right to vote, or worded closer to (D) - S's claim is not true.

Symbolically:
(Able to fight --> ~able to vote)
~A


(E) is an incorrect inference that we make. It is an incorrect negation.

Incorrect inference by incorrect negation:
(Able to fight --> ~able to vote) --> ~17 yo able to vote
~A --> ~B


Is my logic right?

[redcobra21]

Hey

Thanks for the interesting discussion so far. I am still a bit confused by this problem.

S's core appears to be: "Peopel who are old enough to fight are old enough to vote + Government regards 17 year olds as old enough to fight --> Government should acknowledge their right to vote." Answer (D) says that T "challenges the truth of a claim on which S's conclusion is based." But I'm not sure why (D) is the right answer because I'm not sure that S is ever making the claim that fighting and voting ARE the same thing in the first place. S is simply saying that people who are old enough to fight should be old enough to vote, but I don't that this is the same as S making the claim that fighting and voting are the same thing so the government should let 17 year olds vote (after all, his contention might be that people who fight should have a reasonable say in who they want to be their commander in chief - which is different from saying that fighting in a war is the same thing as voting for president). So if S never makes this claim in the first place, how could the correct answer choice say that T is challenging the truth of a claim that was never actually made? I eliminated (D) on this basis and ended up choosing (E) - though that answer wasn't perfect, it at least seemed to make more sense.

Am I missing something? Thanks!

[shirley.li_]

Not sure if I've got this right, but I think the "claim" that D) is referring to is S's initial claim that "people who are old enough to fight for their country are old enough to vote for the people who make decisions about war and peace." T's response is to challenge the truth of this claim by essentially saying S's claim isn't 100% true, if you consider the fact that fighting and voting aren't necessarily the same thing.

I'd appreciate a more in-depth analysis of this question though, as I had a hard time with it. I got it right on my first time doing this test (I guess by sheer luck) but then got it wrong on my second time around and picked E...

[sportsfan8491]

I will give this a shot:

A) is wrong because of the word "supported". If anything, the author seems to present considerations that one could potentially use to attack S's conclusion. Notice, however, that T never challenges the conclusion of S's argument. More on this when we get to answer choice (E).

B) is wrong because T never challenges S's understanding of the conception of "rights". Rather, T challenges the conception of her understanding of the fact the there's a clear distinction between physical (or physiological) and psychological maturity; there's a difference between maturity of the body and maturity of the mind. I'm sure everyone has come across adults whose maturity level really comes into question because they seem to act more like irrational children than they do like rational adults.

C) is wrong because T doesn't mention any obligations in her rebuttal

D) is perfect because the author challenges the truth of S's first sentence, by showing that S has forgotten to take into consideration the fact that there is a distinction between physical maturity and psychological maturity.

E) is wrong because nowhere in her argument does T come out and disagree with S's conclusion. For this to have happened, T would have needed to say and try to prove that "the government should NOT acknowledge their right to vote". We might think that this would be a logical extension of T's argument based on the considerations she presents, but can we definitely say that T concluded this? The answer is no. For all we know, although extremely unlikely, T could still turn around and say "but you know what S, you're a reasonable and rational adult, so even though you overlooked some considerations I still agree with your conclusion because we really need to motivate our youth to become more active in politics by getting them involved at a younger age!"

Hopefully my explanation is helpful.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanation. I'll try to bat clean-up here and tidy up any loose ends.

First of all, this is a Describe the Response question --- the correct answer accurately describes something that happened | the four incorrect answers do NOT describe something that happened. (note: you would NEVER need to diagram a Describe the Argument type question, and I would caution people against trying to do so)

(E) seems to be the consensus 2nd pick here, and, as others said, (E) does not describe something that happened. There is no text we can point to that says that the government should NOT acknowledge 17 year olds' right to vote.

S's argument core, as many of you correctly cited:
P1: Old enough to fight = old enough to vote
P2: govt. thinks 17 yr olds are old enough to fight
C: govt. should think 17 year olds are old enough to vote

As I just wrote it, this is a pretty airtight argument (it only assumes that the govt. should think logically deducible thoughts).

T ends up calling into question the soundness of P1, not the logic of the argument.

Are ppl old enough to fight really old enough to vote? T thinks that would be true only if fighting and voting are fair to compare. T exposes some ways in which fighting and voting are dissimilar, casting doubt on whether fighting and voting are fair to compare.

Has T conclusively proven that P1 was incorrect? No. But Has T challenged the truth of P1? Yes.

As redcobra incisively pointed out, S might actually defend P1 by saying, "P1 is true not because fighting/voting are the same kind of activity but because voting relates to endangering the lives of those who fight".

T, meanwhile, is saying challenging P1 on the basis of whether or not fighting/voting is the same kind of activity.

So while it's true that S never said they WERE the same kind of activity and might support P1 with a different rationale, it is still accurate to say that T's response is designed to call into question P1. T's response has no comment whatsoever about whether or not 17 year olds currently are regarded by the govt as old enough to fight and no comment on whether or not the govt should acknowledge 17 year olds' right to vote.

Whether T's challenge is valid or not, we can pick (D) simply because we know that what T was challenging was S's first sentence, which IS a claim on which S's conclusion is based.

Hope this helps.

[smsotolongo]

If I may ask. I was down to D and E. I was hesitant on D because it said that it "denies a truth of a claim." To me I thought S was making the assumption that voting and fighting are the same and that's why 17 year olds should vote. Would I be correct in saying that? And was the wording just mean to throw me off? I eliminated E because T isn't arguing for another conclusion, he even says it's good "only to the extent that fighting and voting are the same.." and then proceeds to tell us why they aren't the same, so I felt that D was a better answer than E. Thanks.

[christine.trg]

I don't believe S is saying or assuming they are the same kind of activity. Rather, it is just T who is banking his conclusion on that interpretation that
S's ARG good → [F = V]. T then proceeds to show us that [F ≠ V] and therefore that S's ARG is not good.

I see S's claim in different terms: Old enough to F → Old enough to V, which is different than simply F = V.