Q3 - Xavier: Demand by tourists in Nepal

[jionggangtu]

I don't understand this question. I don't understand why C is the correct answer.

Xavier did not talk about YOUNG artists specially and did not talk about the thangkas will cease or exist, Xavier was care about the quality of thankas sold to tourists.

Yvette said that the young artists would concentrate instead on an art form tourists can buy, but does this refer to thangka, or could it be something else?

So, I don't really think they are talking about the same issue. So I chose E.

Can anyone explain?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting.

Xavier warns about thangkas being "a dying art form," and suggests that prohibiting sales to tourists would encourage artists to go back to making high-quality thangkas.

Yvette responds that if sales are banned, young artists will "cease making thangkas" -- and since, according to her, "an art form without dedicated young artists will decay and die," this means that the prohibition would actually cause thangkas to die as an art form. So it would have the exact effect Xavier is trying to avoid!

That's why (C) is correct.

(A) is incorrect because Yvette does not deny that the problem exists.

(B) is incorrect because Yvette doesn't challenge Xavier's sources.

(D) is incorrect because she doesn't draw an analogy.

(E) is out because Yvette never suggests that Xavier's evidence is irrelevant.

Hope that helps!

[Mab6q]

I wanted to add that I eliminated D because Yvette doesn't really draw a conclusion, she just makes some statements. Now did she use an analogy? I was hesitant to think she didn't, because I have seen where an analogy has been equated to an example on the LSAT, and it seems that her second statement could be seen as an example.

Thoughts?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're right that Yvette doesn't draw any explicit conclusion.

X's conclusion is "Nepal should prohibit sales of thangkas to tourists", so if Y had drawn an inconsistent conclusion, we should see her saying "Nepal should NOT prohibit sales of thangkas to tourists".

She's close to implicitly drawing that conclusion, but she may not care if the thangka art form dies. She may just be warning Xavier.

But I agree with Gilad that there is no analogy here.

An analogy, by definition, is something that is NOT directly on topic.

Everything Y says is specifically about thangkas.

An analogy would be something like, "Well, in New York, they banned artists from selling cheap replicas of the Statue of Liberty and now you can't find any GOOD replicas of the Statue of Liberty!"

I could potentially find a way to use the word 'example' for what I just described, like, "Patrick provided an example of a similar situation in which a prohibition led to a decaying art form."

But you can't get away with calling anything about "thangkas" an analogy.

[snoopy]

Wait what. I’m confused why D is wrong because I do believe she uses an analogy: “an art form without...young artists will decay and die.” I too have on the LSAT (PT46 RC Q10) where an analogy seemed to be an example.

Also, I thought Yvette’s conclusion was “if tourists were forbidden to buy thangkas, young artists would [stop] making thangkas and...instead [make] art...that tourists that buy.” And Xavier’s conclusion was “Nepal should prohibit sales of thangkas [since it will] induce artists to create thangkas that meet traditional standards.”

Hence I chose D. What’s wrong in my thinking?

[ChaimL393]

Wait what. I’m confused why D is wrong because I do believe she uses an analogy: “an art form without...young artists will decay and die.” I too have on the LSAT (PT46 RC Q10) where an analogy seemed to be an example.

Also, I thought Yvette’s conclusion was “if tourists were forbidden to buy thangkas, young artists would [stop] making thangkas and...instead [make] art...that tourists that buy.” And Xavier’s conclusion was “Nepal should prohibit sales of thangkas [since it will] induce artists to create thangkas that meet traditional standards.”

Hence I chose D. What’s wrong in my thinking?

While you are correct that Y and X reach mutually inconsistent conclusions, (D) also claims that Y used an "analogy" in responding to X's argument. In fact, Y uses no analogies.

[ohthatpatrick]

\The thing in PT46 is an analogy. The beginning of that second paragraph says "the form of the novel parallels the 3-stages of rites of passage". It's not an example of an actual tribesman going through a rite of passage ... it just bears common features. Certain things match up.

An example is a specific instance of certain broader idea.

Even if you did think "analogies = examples", nothing Yvette brings up is an example. She brings up a hypothetical ... "IF tourists were forbidden". I think, here, you're hearing 'analogy' as 'a thought experiment'.

Analogies are specifically saying, "Here are two different situations that share some common features."
Examples are, "Here is a particular instance of a broader idea."

An example would sound like, "My friend Larry would be hurt by this ban on selling to tourists, so he would stop making thangkas".

An analogy would sound like, "This also happened with almonds in Norway. The country banned the sale of cheap almonds, and soon there weren't any almond makers in Norway at all."