LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#47203
Please post your questions below!
 tizwvu34
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: Aug 15, 2016
|
#64810
Is it going too far in answer B to say they will sometimes treat? How can we know they will ever interact or even know someone from the latter group? Doesn't it need to say they could treat? Thanks PS staff, you guys rock!
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5852
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#64811
tizwvu34 wrote:Is it going too far in answer B to say they will sometimes treat? How can we know they will ever interact or even know someone from the latter group? Doesn't it need to say they could treat? Thanks PS staff, you guys rock!
Hi T,

Thanks for the question! In this case, it's not a problem because of the way the last sentence positions the relationship: it uses if to set up a conditional. So, the entire statement becomes:

  • "It is obvious then that if those in the former group are guided by the directive to treat others as they themselves want to be treated, they will sometimes treat those in the latter group in a manner the members of this latter group do not like."
That means this is all based on an uncertain situation, and they aren't claiming it has happened for sure, only that it might. But if those people do indeed act in that way, then they would indeed cause an issue for the second group.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!
 tizwvu34
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: Aug 15, 2016
|
#64862
Mr. Killoran,

Thank you for the reply! I sincerely appreciate the time PowerScore puts into this forum, it is invaluable.

My follow up is that in answer B they are claiming for sure this will happen by using the phrase "they will." However, I would have less cause for concern if the answer choice said "they might" as you put it.

So the full conditional results in:
"If those in the former group are guided by the directive to treat others as they themselves want to be treated, they will sometimes treat those in the latter group in a manner the members of this latter group do not like."

This makes an assumption that someone from the former group will ever interact with/know someone from the latter group. How can we just manifest and bring this along into this answer choice? We can't know that they will treat, unless we know they have the opportunity to treat.

I realize I am basically restating my same argument as before, but, I apologize I am still not able to see how the distinction between will (certainty) and might/could is not a massive issue in this correct answer choice.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#64886
The key to get you out of this pickle, tizwvu34, is in the question stem: "Which one of the following most reasonably completes the argument above?" (emphasis added)

Do the two groups ever have to interact? No, perhaps not. But is it reasonable to believe that at least sometimes, some members of the first group will interact in some way with members of the second group? Absolutely - there is nothing unreasonable about that statement, and it makes perfect sense to believe that it is probably going to happen at some point. And if they are going to interact, the members of the first group will withhold information that the members of the second group would prefer to be told.

More importantly, is there another answer that is more reasonable than this one? Not at all. The closest second-place answer, for me, is answer A, and that one is still pretty terrible. What reason do we have to believe that the members of the first group would EVER be willing to speak up? Folks who dislike confrontation and unpleasantness might never choose to say something that could lead to those very things. In fact, that is exactly what we would probably expect from people who feel that way!

This language is not unlike a question stem that asks which of the following is most strongly supported by the stimulus, and like those questions (a subset of Must Be True) we can apply a slightly lower standard of proof. The answer must be a reasonable inference based on the facts presented, with no extra outside help, but it need not be absolutely provable. I hope that distinction helps you get more comfortable with the answer here, and with other questions like this one!
 tizwvu34
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: Aug 15, 2016
|
#64928
Thank you both for this, much appreciated.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.