Q24 - In every case of political

[geverett]

Okay, this is a question that definitely showcases the merits of working from wrong to right when going through the answer choices. I got this one right on the PT, but definitely did not have a great grasp at all when I was going through it. However, eliminating all the clearly wrong answer choices still allowed me to arrive at the correct one. This might be a dumb mistake, but it was one I made nonetheless in the moment. The "country" they are referring to in the first sentence is the same "country" they are referring to in the second sentence. When I initially read this argument I thought they were drawing a conclusion about another country based on information regarding political unrest in a certain country. Not the case. Don't make the same mistake I did. Anyways, here's the argument.

1st sentence: In every single instance of unrest in a certain country a person or persons has organized and fomented that unrest.

This is a conditional relationship about all political unrest from the past to the present that can be diagrammed this way.

Every case of unrest thus far --> person or persons org. & fom.

Okay so here is some information that provides some context for the bold conclusion that comes in the second sentence:

Every single case of unrest has had this characteristic --> an unknown person or persons have organized and fomented the unrest. This statement is a bit ambiguous, and here's why: We do not know whether this person or persons were the progenitors of the unrest or merely organizing a movement that was already starting. Also, and this is more important, this person or people could have been different in every instance of unrest, the same for some but not all cases of unrest, or the same for every case of unrest. We just do not know based on what we've been given in the stimulus. Let's see what our conclusion says.

2nd sentence: Therefore behind every single case of unrest in that same country there is a single mastermind who organized and fomented them all.

Okay so the first sentence allows for the possibility of a person or persons meaning a plurality of people who organized and fomented the unrest and the second sentence draws a conclusion that a single mastermind organized and fomented all cases of political unrest in that country. Let's go to the answer choices with this in mind.

(A) "Exact Average" The stimulus is drawing a conclusion about a "single mastermind" when the information in the first sentence allows for the possibility of a person or persons. In this answer choice they are drawing a conclusion about a number existing that is the "exact average" of all drivers license numbers in Chicago. While this is still an erroneous argument it does not contain the same fallacy in the stimulus. Read the previous paragraph for more information.
(B) This could be interpreted to be an erroneous or a valid argument. If the area codes mentioned in the conclusion are "different" area codes meaning that each phone has it's own area code then based on real world experience it's invalid, but of course based on LSAT logic - what we have in the argument it could also be considered valid. However, if it's just saying that because every telephone has an area code that at least as many area codes (whether different, the same, etc.) exist as telephone numbers then it is totally valid. Either way it doesn't match up with the stimulus so get rid of it.
(C) This is what we want. It's basically saying that every citizen of Edmonton has a social insurance number. Then it draws a conclusion that there is 1 social insurance number for every citizen. In other words, every citizen of Edmonton has the same social insurance number. This lines up perfectly with our stimulus which talks about every case of unrest having a person or persons behind it, and then draws a conclusion about a "single mastermind" behind every case of political unrest.
(D) I don't even know what to say to this answer choice. This sounds like something Steve Carell would say in Anchor Man. Completely irrelevant to our argument.
(E) Just because every moment in Vladimir's life from the past to the present has been followed by another moment does not mean that every moment in Vladimir's life will be indefinitely followed by another moment in the future. This is an erroneous argument as well, but it's not flawed in the way that our stimulus argument is flawed. Get rid of it.

Let me know if anything I wrote lacks clarity. I would be happy to hear any feedback/critique.

[chike_eze]

Borrowing some insights from the previous post, here's how I approached this one during my review.

Each Political Unrest in Country X had a Person or Persons that organized and fomented it.

Therefore,

One Person organized and fomented all cases of Political Unrest in Country X.

Similar Argument: All households in New York city shop at a grocery store. Therefore, Trader Joes, at East 14th street, is the only grocery store that all households in New york city shop at.

The argument is flawed because it assumes that because each element of Class A can be matched up with one or more elements in Class B, that one element in Class B can be matched up with all elements in Class A.

(C) Flawed, Match! Each Edmunton citizen has a SI number, therefore, one SI number to all Edmunton citizens

(A) Flawed, but doesn't match. I think this one assumes that Chicago drivers have consecutive numbers (integers).
(B) Flawed, but doesn't match. Fails to consider that an area code could be assigned to more than one telephone number.
(D) Flawed, but doesn't match. Not exactly sure what the error is. I think it assumes that because each strand of hair loss is insignificant, that the accumulated strands of hair loss will also be insignificant.
(E) Doesn't match Flaw. Conflicted on whether this argument is valid or flawed. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

My Reasoning on (E): If each Vladimir's moment in life is followed by another moment in his life, it seems that his moments in life will continue in perpetuity. So I'm leaning toward the notion that this statement is valid. In any case, the reasoning in this answer choice does not match the reasoning in the prompt.

Any thoughts on whether (E)'s reasoning is Valid or Flawed??

[geverett]

I think E is valid. Of course we could quote our beloved former president Bill Clinton and say "It depends on what your definition of is is" haha. No, but seriously I feel like E could be said to be valid since the use of "is" does not refer to the past or future, but the present. It also sets up a conditional statement which seems to make it impossible for Vladimir's life to end.

[chike_eze]

I think E is valid. Of course we could quote our beloved former president Bill Clinton and say "It depends on what your definition of is is" haha.

Yeah, I thought so too. Nice of you to bring back the famous "IS-IS" defense. I remember back then thinking... what the he?! is he talking about? I guess if the facts are not in your favor, re-define the rules.

No, but seriously I feel like E could be said to be valid since the use of "is" does not refer to the past or future, but the present. It also sets up a conditional statement which seems to make it impossible for Vladimir's life to end.

I agree with your argument. I guess determining whether the argument is valid or flawed would help us quickly eliminate this answer choice (or work harder to match it up) -- "Hmm, look at E's argument, it's valid... O well, we are looking for flawed arguments. Eliminate E"

Thanks!

[timsportschuetz]

Another important factor in eliminating wrong answer choices on these types of questions is matching the INDICATOR and QUANTITY words from the stimulus!

The argument goes as follows: Every ... some unknown person or persons (IMPORTANT: Notice how the LSAT writers attempt to trap test takers by using the word 'some' in this instance - it does NOT denote conditional logic! It is simply used as a descriptive adjective in this case... however, the test writers then attempt to trap test takers into considering answer [A] due to it containing the word 'some'! Notice how 'some' has NO logical significance in this particular case (This is borne out by the fact that the credited answer choice completely omits this term!).
The argument continues: All .... Single... All.

Answer choice [B] can be eliminated due to the non-matching 'at least' term.

Some further advice: I have noticed that on some parallel questions it is extremely useful to pay particular attention to words indicating a relational connection. IE: if the stimulus has a conclusion that contains words such as "less likely", "more likely", etc., the correct answer choice MUST contain such a similar relational context! On one of the PT's, the stimulus used "less likely" in the conclusion. The ONLY answer choice that had such a similar structure was the credited choice - this answer contained "...has a lower probability...". All the other wrong answer choices had categorical conclusions (A --> B).

[jenniferreisig]

Hi,

I really like the point of paying attention to the indicator and quantity words. That really does make a difference. This strategy automatically gets rid of (B) because of "at least". Do parallel questions also take time into consideration? I assume that they would. The stimulus for example states that "...there HAS BEEN a single mastermind...." denoting the past tense. Both (D) and (E) speak about the future. So if we can knock out (B) because of a mismatch in indicator and (D) & (E) for using a future conclusion we are then left to contend between (A) and (C). Can we then eliminate (A) because it speaks about averages? The stimulus makes no mention of averages which would be very important to the point of the argument. If so, then we are left with (C). Honestly, I'm still not overly comfortable with this particular parallel question. I actually found it quite difficult and will definitely revisit again before test day.

Would love input on my line of thinking above if anyone has any.

[LsatCrusher822]

Seriously, what exactly is the flaw with answer choice D? Its clearly flawed, but can't seem to articulate it well...

It seems to do a mistaken negation on a limited group (20 year olds), but the necessary portion of the original conditional gets another characteristic flaw (equating becoming bald and that event being significant)... weird answer choice indeed!

Premise: single hair loss --> insignificant (NOT significant)
Conclusion: full head of hair at 20 --> NOT become bald