to the top

#23 - Sabina: The words used in expressing facts affect

Administrator
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 6670
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 3,343

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument between Sabina and Emile focuses on the style in which arguments are expressed. Sabina believes that style is irrelevant to the validity of an argument while Emile believes that style is important. Answer choice (A) is incorrect since both speakers would probably agree with the statement. Also, the issue is about using words, not defining words. Answer choice (B) is incorrect because Sabina's opinion on the statement is unknown. Both would probably agree with answer choices (C) and (D).
lday4
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:00 pm
Points: 4

Can you explain what exactly makes E a better choice than A? I know that Sabina mentions that words needs to be clearly/consistently defined, but because she first says, "The words used in expressing facts affect neither the facts nor the conclusions those facts will support" and did not clarify in this sentence the correct definition of words, that to me seemed like enough support that Sabina would disagree with A.

E also did not seem ideal because although we know that Emile would definitely agree with the statement, we don't know that Sabina would always disagree with this statement. 1, what it describes (premise truth and relationship to the conclusion) doesn't seem to equate exactly with what's described in the stimulus and 2, a factor seems too vague and could apply to something other than words which is the only factor Sabina describes.

Thanks!
David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:25 am
Points: 743

lday4 wrote:Can you explain what exactly makes E a better choice than A? I know that Sabina mentions that words needs to be clearly/consistently defined, but because she first says, "The words used in expressing facts affect neither the facts nor the conclusions those facts will support" and did not clarify in this sentence the correct definition of words, that to me seemed like enough support that Sabina would disagree with A.

E also did not seem ideal because although we know that Emile would definitely agree with the statement, we don't know that Sabina would always disagree with this statement. 1, what it describes (premise truth and relationship to the conclusion) doesn't seem to equate exactly with what's described in the stimulus and 2, a factor seems too vague and could apply to something other than words which is the only factor Sabina describes.

Thanks!



Hello,

"Moreover, if the words are clearly defined and consistently used, the actual words chosen make no difference to an argument's soundness." seems to show that Sabina would agree with answer A, since she likes clear definitions.
E is a good answer, since "the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion" seems to match up with "facts", "conclusions", and "soundest argument" from the stimulus. And "factor" goes along with, "After all, many words have social and political connotations that influence people's response to claims expressed in those words . . . . Since whether people will acknowledge a fact is affected by how the fact is expressed, the conclusions they actually draw are also affected."

David