Point at Issue Question #4 Page 617

[johnawysham]

I am submitting this input with the aim of correcting what I see as a small error in your excellent prep book. I agree that the correct answer is Choice D, but Choice C is close and I think the way Choice C is dismissed is could be improved. In re-reading the stem, you will see that Lea, the first speaker, begins by saying "Contemporary art has become big business." She then goes on to give reasons for this view. Susan, the second speaker, answers by first saying "I disagree". She then goes on to explain how she disagrees.

It seems to me reasonable to assume that when Susan opens with "I disagree", she is commenting on Lea's opening remark that contemporary art has become big business. Yet in explaining why Choice C is not right, the text says outright "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art is big business". Really?? I think this is highly debatable. Further, saying that her statement that there are smaller, independent galleries is not an implicit admission that the whole field has become overly commercialized, while true, misses the point. Her statement that there are smaller, independent galleries instead supports her view that the the whole field has NOT become overly commercialized -- meaning, that she disagrees with the statement that contemporary art has become big business.

As I said at the top, I do agree that Choice D is a better choice than Choice C, but the explanation why Choice C is not the correct choice needs rewording.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi John,

I appreciate your in depth analysis, both of this question and of the answer explanation; however, I encourage you to revisit both this problem and the explanation because I think that you might find that the explanation is accurate after all!

When dealing with these questions, it is key that students deal with the plain meaning of the text and not bring in additional assumptions. Often, I like to revisit the section directions for Logical Reasoning to emphasize the kind of close reading skills necessary: "You should not make assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage."

Here, in fact, there is no support for the contention that Susan disagrees with the statement that "[c]ontemporary art has become big business." Susan's disagreement is wholly restricted to whether "the work of contemporary artists is utterly bereft of spontaneity and creativity." She does not extend her discussion into the avenues that you explore in the remainder of your second paragraph.

This is not meant to discourage you from your careful analysis of these problems. On the contrary, you're doing exactly the right thing! However, I wish to caution you that when you start bringing in additional assumptions (i.e. extrapolating based on what may or may not be true) you will sometimes find that you create unnecessary difficulties for yourself.

Unlike some tests and the way English is used in common parlance, the LSAT is extraordinarily precise. For instance, to return to this problem, it could be true that Susan doesn't think contemporary art has become big business insofar as small galleries still present innovative new artwork, or it could be true that Susan thinks contemporary art has indeed become big business despite the innovative art at small galleries. These exhibits could be outliers from the larger trend.

I hope you find this discussion helpful and encourage you to keep up the close reading! Just be careful not to bring any outside suppositions to these very carefully worded problems!

[johnawysham]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As you know, in the introduction to finding incorrect answers to Point at Issue Questions (see top of page 604 of the 2017 LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible) we are told "finding the correct answer in most Point at Issue questions requires you to examine the conclusion made by each speaker." Returning to the issue in question, Lea's conclusion is "Contemporary art has become big business." Susan's is "I disagree." Now, examining these two conclusions, as per the instructions on page 604, it seems eminently plausible to conclude that the point at issue is whether contemporary art has become big business, does it not? Why would standing one conclusion opposite another and seeing if there was a point at issue be "mak(ing) assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage"? In essence, you seem to be saying that in comparing conclusions I am wrongly making assumptions. Why so? As Susan continues, she supplies a premise to her conclusion that directly contradicts a premise in Lea's argument. So, this disagreement is clear. But she could also be using the premise to bolster her more general conclusion that she disagrees with Lea that contemporary art has become big business, could she not? We know she disagrees, but we don't know whether the disagreement is over the conclusion of Lea's argument or just the premise re galleries. Susan's use of the gallery premise buttresses her conclusion, but we don't know exactly what she was concluding. To argue that assuming she was disagreeing with Lea's conclusion is "implausible", in the face of this vagueness and after being instructed in particular to examine conclusions in locating point at issue disagreements, seems farfetched to me.

[Jonathan Evans]

John,

Good points! However, note the precise language in the instructions for Point at Issue questions: "finding the correct answer in most Point at Issue questions requires you to examine the conclusion made by each speaker" (emphasis mine). This particular question is difficult. It's an outlier. It's one of the cases in which the conclusion is not the point at issue, and that's what makes it difficult!

Also note your analysis: "she could also be using the premise to bolster her more general conclusion that she disagrees with Lea that contemporary art has become big business, could she not?"

Herein notice the conditional (the linguistic mood) language: "could also be using" and "could she not"

That's the problem. Be very careful with logical reasoning problems. We're only concerned with what is absolutely verifiable per the evidence in the stimulus. Whether or not Susan thinks "contemporary art has become big business" is an open question. There is not adequate support either way.

To be clear, I'm not stating my opinion here; I'm stating the manner in which you must approach LR questions on the LSAT. In fact, I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis! Susan might very well disagree with the Lea's opinion that contemporary art has become big business, but the problem is we don't know either way for sure.

To achieve a top score on the LSAT, it is necessary to adjust the way we approach the text here. Sometimes I even tell students to throw everything they know about reading comprehension out the window. We're in LSAT land here, and we don't make the rules. Unfortunately, the LSAC is not very receptive to different interpretations. Our job as LSAT students is to shift gears and approach the text how the LSAC wants us to.

You're clearly a gifted student, and I'm confident you can achieve a top score on the LSAT. One important step on your way to achieving this score is to "buy in" to the LSAT internal logic. While we all can take issue with different interpretations of LSAT problems, at the end of the day, part of acing this test is learning how to think like the writers of this test. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to your next post!

[johnawysham]

Hi Jon,

Let me first be clear about one thing -- I am not trying to win an argument for arguing sake but for clarity. I come from a background where being clear in what we say or write carries a premium.

In explaining why Answer Choice (C) is incorrect, the author states "Apply the Agree/Disagree Test: Lea agrees with the statement, but Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art is big business." Jon, the latter part of the author's sentence may not be true, and by possibly not being true the explanation in the book is not clear. As you wrote in your earlier post, whether Susan thinks that "contemporary art has become big business" is an open question. Translation -- we don't know whether Susan disagrees with Lea whether contemporary art is big business. Since we don't know, given the context of the statement, it's quite plausible that Susan does think it is big business (probably more so than that she doesn't, given the context). Now, I submit that when the situation is that we don't know whether she was commenting on the Lea statement about big business, this is a very different situation from a situation where we know she was not commenting on the Lea statement about big business. The former situation is what we have in the book, something you agree with me on, while the latter situation does not exist. Can you agree, then, too, that "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art is big business" could be a false statement? And if you can, would you agree with me the possibility that the text is misleading readers ought to be clarified? I am urging clarification to your excellent prep book in this instance and wonder now if you are willing to grant this is possible.

There is only one correct answer to question 4 on page 613 and the correct answer is Answer Choice D, not Answer Choice C. I agree with you on this.

What I don't agree is the use of possibly false statements to reach this conclusion. Answer C needs to be dismissed not because she DOESN'T COMMENT on whether contemporary is big business -- as I argue above we absolutely do not know but, quite possibly, she is commenting on the matter. Answer C needs to be dismissed because WE DON'T KNOW whether she is commenting on whether contemporary art is big business.

This important distinction does not come through adequately in the way the book explains why Answer Choice C is a wrong answer. The current explanation is quite possibly not truthful and so requires clarification. I recommend improving the explanation for future readers.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi John,

Thanks for the messages! In reviewing the direction this conversation has taken, I thought it might be worthwhile for me to jump in and clarify a few things. I apologize in advance though—I've responded to three separate questions you posted, and each time I've had to disagree with your assessment. So, I feel bad about constantly appearing to disagree with you and I hope you don't take it personally! As you said, it's all about being clear and getting it right

So, let's go back into your posts in this thread and break down the concern you have. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your contention in a nutshell is that while (D) is clearly the best answer choice, answer choice (C) has some merit and more importantly the way I eliminated (C) could be improved. Breaking down each segment of your concern, about answer choice (D) you stated that "I agree that the correct answer is Choice D," "I do agree that Choice D is a better choice than Choice C," and "the correct answer is Answer Choice D." So, we're good there and we both agree that (D) is the best choice. As I've stated to you in a reply to a different question of yours, it's important to see the test from their perspective, and one way of doing that is to understand why they see their answers as correct and incorrect. You're doing that here, and that's excellent.

The next part is whether (C) has merit, and you've noted that, "Choice C is close," and I actually disagree with this. But I noted that as you talked with Jonathan, you shifted your focus towards the quality of the explanation of why (C) is wrong and away from the inherent value of (C), and so I don't think our disagreement here is a big deal (and indeed, you may have eventually concluded that (C) wasn't all that close). Either way, you knew it was wrong and that's really what matters here. The fact that (C) is known to be wrong will figure in my analysis, but we'll come back to that.

The last part, and I would wager the most important part from your perspective, was the concern over the how I dismissed answer choice (C), and you noted that, "the way Choice C is dismissed could be improved," "the explanation why Choice C is not the correct choice needs rewording," and "The current explanation is quite possibly not truthful and so requires clarification. I recommend improving the explanation for future readers," among others. Before going into depth on the wording of my explanation, let me note that there's an argument that can be made that says that every explanation of any question could be improved, no matter who it was written by or how long it is. There's always more that can be added, additional points to be expanded, and so on. And part of it is subjective because what serves as an excellent explanation for one person might be found wanting by another person. In reviewing this, I actually don't take issue with what I wrote and I will show why it's not incorrect, but in a future edition I might further expand the discussion of why I wrote what is there. Doing so might help make my point clearer to others, and that is always my goal when talking about the LSAT. That aside, let's get into the details!

In your initial post, you stated that:

• "It seems to me reasonable to assume that when Susan opens with "I disagree", she is commenting on Lea's opening remark that contemporary art has become big business. Yet in explaining why Choice C is not right, the text says outright "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art is big business". Really?? I think this is highly debatable."

You note that it is reasonable to assume that Susan's comment is about Lea's opening remark, but I don't agree with that at all. If you look at the order of the conversation, if you were to remove that opening remark about big business entirely, the conversation still makes perfect sense:

• Lea: The work of contemporary artists is utterly bereft of spontaneity and creativity, as a visit to any art gallery demonstrates.
  
  Susan: I disagree. One can still find spontaneous, innovative new artwork in most of the smaller, independent galleries.
  
  [Copyright note: the text above is owned by LSAC. The text fragment here is presented under Fair Use copyright provisions.]

That provides the basis for a very logical and grammatically correct interpretation that Susan never addressed whether contemporary art has become big business. And, it shows that her statement does not in any way have to be support for a belief about commercialism (I point this out in order to address your comment that "Her statement that there are smaller, independent galleries instead supports her view that the the whole field has NOT become overly commercialized -- meaning, that she disagrees with the statement that contemporary art has become big business."). What Jonathan was trying to point out is that you've taken something that you considered a possibility and turned into an accepted reality; doing so is dangerous in these questions, and this is why he focused so much on the language of probability and conditionality you were using when making your argument. Consider the difference here between my interpretation of what LSAC did vs yours: for my interpretation to be true requires no further assumption of what Susan meant; Susan didn't comment in any confirmed way on commercialism and so saying she didn't is reasonable. For yours to be true, you have to read into what she meant and base your interpretation on on a scenario that you've admitted only could be true. It requires more work and leaps of logic to support your position by comparison. Thus, my statement that "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art is big business" is more than defensible. And, as we go on, we'll see why it is actually more than just defensible, it's the actual case of what is happening here because your interpretation would make answer choice (C) also correct.

Quick side point I want to make: as this conversation goes on, I don't want it to become "my view" vs "your view," or to possibly become contentious in any way. The LSAT should be fun, and studying for this test can and should be a really enjoyable intellectual exercise. One thing that helps make it less personal to me is that my job here is to explain how LSAC views the test, not me. I've mentioned this many times on the Forum, and everything I say in the books and here is about better understanding what the test makers are doing. If I comment on why an answer is correct or incorrect, the lens I'm attempting to use is the one the test makers would use to evaluate answers, not mine. In that sense, I'm simply the messenger, and thus the question isn't really whether I'm being truthful or not (as you reference in your last message), but whether my description of what LSAC is doing is accurate.

Moving on, that mention of LSAC is a timely one because I'd like to talk a bit about what we know about their viewpoint here. Now, this is hindsight, so I wouldn't expect anyone to make this argument to themselves during the exam, but since we know definitively that LSAC views answer choice (C) as incorrect we can draw some conclusions about how they view the statements in the stimulus. Answer choice (C) states that "contemporary art has become big business," and we know that LSAC does not think this is something that Lea and Susan disagree about. Using that interpretation, let's go back into what you said about Susan's statements. Your interpretation hinged on the idea that the "I disagree" could very well mean that Susan disagreed with Lea that "Contemporary art has become big business," and that we just don't really know what Susan thought there. But, we actually do. There are two cases here: either the "I disagree" applies to that sentence or it does not. I've shown conclusively why it doesn't have to apply to that sentence, but we can also prove that it can't in LSAC's view. Here's how:

• If Susan's "I disagree" were to apply to Lea's conclusion, then at that point answer choice (C) would have to be a correct answer. Lea would have said that "Contemporary art has become big business" and Susan would have flatly stated that she disagreed, and that it was not. If that's the case, then they would indeed disagree about the content of answer choice (C), which would make (C) indisputably a correct answer. But that's not the case—LSAC has told us that (C) is incorrect and thus that they aren't disagreeing about (C). So, while it is coming to us in hindsight, it does actually resolve the issue that you and I are talking about.

This is important because in your first message you stated that: "It seems to me reasonable to assume that when Susan opens with "I disagree", she is commenting on Lea's opening remark that contemporary art has become big business...Her statement that there are smaller, independent galleries instead supports her view that the the whole field has NOT become overly commercialized -- meaning, that she disagrees with the statement that contemporary art has become big business." [italics added for emphasis] Stop for a moment there: according to your interpretation, Susan believes that contemporary art has not become big business, and that automatically places her in disagreement with Lea's view on that topic. Thus, in making your argument for your interpretation, you've forced (C) to be correct, but we already know that (C) is incorrect.

Now, with the "I disagree" being established as not addressing whether "Contemporary art has become big business," we can now see that Susan never actually commented about the issue; the "I disagree" addresses a different point, and since Susan didn't make any other comment about big business, we simply do not know her position here. Thus, my statements that "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art is big business" and later that "there is no way to know Susan’s position" are both accurate.

Whew! That was a lengthy breakdown, but it's actually kind of a fun issue for me because it allows us to get into the true details that cause students to select or avoid certain answers. It's also gratifying because whenever I see a student raise a concern that something is incorrect in one of the books, I'm naturally concerned. The good news is that in this case there is no problem with either my explanation or this LSAT question. That doesn't mean the issue isn't tricky though, and I'll probably expand this explanation in a future edition in order to avoid any similar confusion.

Thanks for the enjoyable discussion!

[johnawysham]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply. Let me address it. You say that if we remove the opening sentence that Lea gives, the flow of the conversation makes perfect sense. But why do this, why make a straw man here? The readers are asked to choose answers with the opening remark included, not removed, and it is the inclusion of the opening remark that, in fact, is the source of the confusion that follows. For when we leave Lea's statement in -- her statement "Contemporary art has become big business" -- (which is her conclusion, by the way, which is a more powerful statement than a premise) and we have Susan opening with her conclusion, "I disagree", it is ambiguous whether Susan is referring to Lea's opening remark or her premises. Merely because what Susan says follows Lea's premises does not mean her statement is about the premises alone, as anyone who maps usual conversations would surely be able to show. Leaving it in, as of course we must since this is what readers see, means leaving in the ambiguity. And leaving in the ambiguity makes C problematic, not easily dismissed.

It can be dismissed by LSAC, however, because in choosing a correct "Point at Issue" answer we are asked to choose a First Family answer, a Must Be True answer. Answer C fails this test because it is not clear that Susan is disagreeing with Lea's conclusion that contemporary art has become big business. She might be, she might not be. Given this ambiguity, Answer C fails the "must be true" test. Answer D, however, succeeds in the "must be true" test because Susan's premise directly contradicts Lea's without any ambiguity.

You argue that because LSAC has indicated that Answer C is incorrect, this means that Lea and Susan are not disagreeing about Answer C, that they are not disagreeing that "contemporary art has become big business." I ask you to pause for a moment here, however. The instructions in the question stem in Question 4 state "Lea's and Susan's remarks provide the most support for holding that they disagree about whether", with the rest a blank to be filled in. Given these instructions, what is to prevent an answer from providing some support for a disagreement, with another answer providing even more support? Recall that the question stem asks us to choose the answer that holds the MOST support, not the one that provides the only support. Now, do Lea's and Susan's remarks raise the possibility for holding that they disagree that "contemporary art has become big business"? Yes, of course they do, if we include all of Lea's remarks including her conclusion, the first sentence. Is Answer C the right answer because their remarks provide support for this disagreement? No!! And why not? Because Lea's and Susan's remarks are ambiguous with regard to Answer C. Instead, they provide MORE support for holding that they disagree about the premise on galleries, an unambiguous disagreement spelled out in Answer D.

And so there is no problem here that LSAC holds that Answer C is incorrect, there is no necessity to conclude from this, as you do, that Susan and Lea are not disagreeing about contemporary art (the answer in Answer C). There is merely the necessity, given LSAC's view that Answer D is correct and Answer C is incorrect, that Lea's and Susan's remarks provide more support for Answer D than they do for Answer C -- in fact, the most support for Answer D.

I submit that in explaining that Answer C is the incorrect choice, you merely need to show that the remarks in the two passages do not provide as much support for making Answer C the disagreement as they provide support for making Answer D the disagreement.

I am not challenging LSAC's decision that Answer C is incorrect. I am challenging the explanation provided in the text for how they might have reached their decision. The explanation given in the text defies common sense and so needs rewording, is all.

Regards,

John

[johnawysham]

It is illuminating to consider another straw man argument.

Let's keep in all of the remarks by Lea and Susan except the final sentence of Susan's, her premise. The exchange then goes like this:

Lea: Contemporary art has become big business. Nowadays art has less to do with self-expression than with making money. The work of contemporary artists is utterly bereft of spontaneity and creativity, as a visit to any art gallery demonstrates.

Susan: I disagree.

Now, from this exchange, is it tenable to assert, as the explanation in the text says on page 617 in explaining why Answer choice C is incorrect, that "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art has become big business"? Nope. Is it plausible, then, that Susan is commenting on Lea's conclusion that contemporary art has become big business. Indeed, it is.

Okay, throw back into the mix the final sentence of the exchange, Susan's premise "One can still find spontaneous, innovative new artwork in most of the smaller, independent galleries". Has this addition changed things so that we must now say, definitively, that Susan does not comment on contemporary art? How so? Recall that her statement "I disagree" is a conclusion and the subsequent statement a premise. Would it not be unlikely for Susan's conclusion to be merely a restatement (in advance) of her premise? Is it not more plausible that her conclusion is more than the subsequent premise? And since she could be basing her conclusion on any remark made by Lea, as shown by the straw man example above, might not the conclusion still be a comment on contemporary art? If the answer is yes, then how appropriate is the explanation given in the text that "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art has become big business"?

The point of all of this is to underline that it is indeed plausible to assume that Answer choice C, which highlights a disagreement over views on contemporary art, is the correct answer. To explain away why choice C is incorrect merely by stating "Susan does not comment on whether contemporary art has become big business" -- an questionable assertion -- is misleading. Indeed, there are strong reasons for believing Susan does comment on Lea's views of contemporary art. However, the reason Answer choice C is incorrect is that these reasons are not as strong as reasons given in Answer choice D for an area of disagreement.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi John,

Thanks for the replies! I appreciate you addressing my explanation and I like the enthusiasm you're showing for trying to justify your interpretation. I still don't agree with your assessment, but I admire your tenacity

I actually wrote the reply below the other evening but wasn't able to get around to posting it due to other obligations. So, I'm going to post this now and then if I feel that an additional response is warranted to your most recent post, then I'll add that later. Because I want us to avoid repeating ourselves, I'm not going to go back in and break it down point by point; I've already addressed several things you said so I'll let this response stand in conjunction with my prior reply as outlining my position.

First, in your opening paragraph of the message from Sunday, you charge me with making a Straw Man argument when I removed Lea's opening sentence and used that as a discussion point in my reply. I'm terribly sorry to have to correct you on this point, but that's not a Straw Man, and since I don't want other LSAT students reading this to become accidentally confused as to what a Straw Man argument looks like, I have to rather forcefully refute your claim (and I mention this so you know this isn't personal, it's just LSAT). For students who don't recall the meaning of the term Straw Man, I define it in the LRB as "A common error of reasoning that occurs when an author attempts to attack an opponent’s position by ignoring the actual statements made by the opposing speaker and instead distorts and refashions the argument, making it weaker in the process." (LRB, page 488, italics added for emphasis). Another common definition of a Straw Man references "intentionally misrepresenting a position to make it easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument," and I think we can safely say that I wasn't attempting to misrepresent anything. A Straw Man often happens in real life in debates and other forums for argument like political discussions, and is often characterized by statements such as "So what you are saying is" and "What you really mean is." That's not what I did here at all—I made it quite clear that I was removing that sentence in order to show you that that sentence was non-essential to Susan's response, and that technique of analysis is actually commonplace in logic. It's not a Straw Man when you remove a section of an argument to isolate a point and use it for discuss a point and at the same time explain to the other person what you are doing and why.

You also asked why I removed that section of Lea's argument, which surprised me a bit since I had stated why I was doing that right in the text: "it shows that her statement does not in any way have to be support for a belief about commercialism." Stepping back further, my goal was to help you see how LSAC was considering this exchange. I obviously wasn't trying to imply that first sentence didn't exist, and the reason behind me temporarily removing that sentence was that I was looking for a method to help you better understand what was occurring here and how LSAC viewed this answer choice. My hope was that it would change your perspective on what you were reading and help clarify what was occurring. Regardless, the point remains that if Susan was indeed replying to that exact portion of Lea's statement, then removing it should have created a sort of non-sequitur or other confusion. It did not do that, and the fact that the exchange made perfect sense is a point against your position.

Speaking of removing sections of the argument, I'd like to address the reconfiguration that you suggested in your most recent post in this thread. Your reconfiguration actually actually doesn't shed any additional light on the situation because you removed Susan's premise, and since she was the one replying, the reason behind her conclusion was actually important. Just leaving the broad statement, "I disagree" makes it possible for her to be disagreeing with anything, whereas when we see her premise, we get a clear indication of what point she was addressing in Lea's argument. Please note that when I say that "I disagree" allows her to be disagreeing with anything that does not prove that she was possibly addressing Lea's first sentence because she didn't just say she disagreed, she added the reasons why she disagreed; those two pieces, when taken together, tell us what part of Lea's argument she disagreed with.

You also made a statement in the first paragraph of your second most recent reply that isn't necessarily true, namely that a conclusion is a more powerful statement than a premise (I think that's what you meant in saying: "her conclusion, by the way, which is a more powerful statement than a premise"). The idea of "power" is too vague to really convey your precise meaning here, and that is quite possibly why I didn't follow your statement. For example, if you meant the force of the terms (such as absolute vs non-absolute), then an argument such as "All As are Bs, and all As are Cs, therefore some Bs are Cs" has a conclusion that has less force than either of the two premises. I don't think that's what you meant, but I guess I'm not totally certain. Did you mean the conclusion had more importance than the premise? If so, that's not how I look at arguments. Regardless, that was a non-essential point, but one that wasn't clear to me.

Next in your message from Sunday you mention the mapping of usual conversations, and use that as part of a claim that there is ambiguity here. I think one of the great things the LSAT teaches us is that there are many different argument forms and ways of stating ideas, but the test makers have repeatedly indicated that the only thing that matters is how the argument in front of you is interpreted. For the reasons I stated above, I don't find ambiguity here. Susan didn't address Lea's first sentence, and the only point you are able to make in opposition to that is that it's merely possible she was doing so. I'm certainly ok with you having this opinion, I just don't share it and I've provided evidence as to why in my prior response. Reading what you wrote here—which is different than what you originally wrote—I think I can say that you feel that her comment could possibly be about commercialism but that it isn't confirmed whereas I simply don't think it's about commercialism. My very strong belief is also that LSAC thinks that as well, but at this point it no longer matters: under either interpretation answer choice (C) is incorrect, and the nice thing is that we both agree on that [At least I assumed that we had agreed on that based on your message from Sunday. In the last paragraph of your message from today you state that "it is indeed plausible to assume that Answer choice C, which highlights a disagreement over views on contemporary art, is the correct answer." Is that a mis-statement? You had originally claimed that (C) was a possible disagreement ("Choice C is close," from the initial post in this thread) but then on Sunday stated that (C) wasn't a disagreement ("Answer C fails this test because it is not clear that Susan is disagreeing with Lea's conclusion...") but this latest message suggests again that you think (C) could be a disagreement. I'll state again that it is a known fact that LSAC's view here is that the statement contained in answer choice (C) is not a statement that Lea and Susan disagree about. I feel like you had come to that conclusion as well, but your recent statements confused me. In this case, opinion is not relevant since we knwo answer choice (C) is incorrect and thus we know LSAC's view about it, and their view is law as far as the LSAT is concerned, and I know we both agree on that ]

Switching to a different part of your message from Sunday, let's talk about the question stem. It's interesting that you raised this topic because in my prior response I strongly considered talking about the nature of the question stem but chose not to because my reply was already quite long and I didn't want to lose any more readers at this point, lol! But, based on your reply here, it's definitely warranted now. This point is actually a fascinating one, and it underlines why I made the argument I did in my prior post, so please bear with me as I outline what's occurring here since I do it not only for our discussion but for any other students still reading.

• In many LSAT questions stems, you see the modifier "most" placed in front of the task word, and when that occurs the test makers are making an implicit admission that more than one answer could satisfy the requirements of the question stem but that you are to choose the strongest (or best) of the answers. Examples from a recent test include (italics added):
  
  • "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict in the statements above?"
    
    "Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?"
    
    "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?"
  In each of those cases there is the possibility that two answers both meet task portion of the requirement (for example, two answers might each strengthen an argument) but that you are to select the better or stronger of the two (as in, choose the one of the two that strengthens the argument the most, or at least more than any other answer). The appearance of "most" in these situations is a protector of sorts, and covers LSAC in those cases where a second answer could be argued to meet the task. With "most" in place, the test makers are covered and can then dismiss the answer by saying it doesn't meet the "most" portion of the criteria. I talk about this in the LRB on page 82, in case anyone is interested in reading more about this topic. The questions that typically include the "most" modifier are ones where relativity is an issue or where the it can be tough to discern which answer truly is the best, such as Strengthen and Weaken.
  
  However, not all questions work that way. There are some questions where the test makers clearly direct that there is one and only one answer that will satisfy the question stem. Examples from that same recent test include:
  
  • "The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument"
    
    "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?"
    
    "The conclusion of the argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?"
  These examples don't allow for relative answers or degrees of "rightness;" they instead direct the test taker to find the one answer that fits what is asked for, and by definition the other four answers don't fit the task. these cases typically address situations where the answers must meet a well-defined criterion or state of existence, such as being an assumption or being a point of agreement or disagreement. In those cases you either are or you aren't, and so the "most" modifier that you typically see in questions like Weaken or Strengthen disappears.
  
  I raise this point because you've interpreted this question stem as the former (where there could be degrees of correctness but we're looking for the "best" answer), as indicated by your statement that "what is to prevent an answer from providing some support for a disagreement, with another answer providing even more support?" However, the "most" in this question stem does not modify the nature of the topic they disagree about and thus there is no introduction of relativity among the answers. If that was the case, the question stem would read something along the lines of, "what do they most disagree about..." or "the point of greatest disagreement is..."
  
  Instead, the meaning of the question stem here is in line with the second set of examples I provided, where there is just one possible correct answer (as far as meeting the criterion, that is; obviously there is always only one correct answer but I'm discussing a related but separate point here). The question stem isolates "disagree about" and moves the "most" over to "provide the most support." That's very tricky but according to their wording there aren’t relatively valid answers here. Either the speakers disagree or they don't. Any answer that contained a disagreement would automatically be right, and since they can't allow more than one answer to perform that function, the other four answers are not disagreements.

I think the question stem is one of the more interesting points in this problem, but only in a hindsight kind of way based on the conversation we are having. During the LSAT, you'd simply look for the answer that was a disagreement and move on when you found it. We're only talking about it because I used that structural element in an attempt to help explain to you the interpretation of this problem.

Alright, this turned out to be much longer than I expected! In summation, I'm very comfortable with the interpretation in the book, and it is clearly defensible. You may not agree even after all this discussion, and while that bothers me since I know it will create occasional problems for you in other questions, for now I'm not sure how much deeper we can go without making new versions of the same arguments. I don't think that's productive for either of us, so all that I ask is that you maybe come back and revisit this discussion in a few weeks. And I may come back to and try to refine this explanation or expand it in an attempt to help you understand this as well as possible. The key thing to remember is that I'm trying to explain how LSAC looks at this, and I'm confident this is their interpretation. This is why you saw Jonathan being concerned about arguing with the test, because he knows that for all of us here we aren't putting our spin it, we're trying to explain LSAC's spin. As I've noted elsewhere, You Can't Argue With the LSAT. I truly hope this latest post helps clarify some of the points I was making above, but if not at the least we've covered some really interesting LSAT points.

Thanks for the engaging discussion and have a great evening!

[johnawysham]

Hi Dave,

I will make this quick because you certainly have a point that we have belabored this matter mightily of late and revisiting it later would pay dividends.

Two points. In your discussion of the use of "most" in the question stem, you outline that LSAC uses two versions of most on the exams (I am paraphrasing what you wrote here), and if I am correct one type is where there is a "best" answer (meaning that the correct answer is better than another incorrect answer) and the other type of "most" is when there is only one correct answer. You write that the answer type in Question 4 is the latter, where there is only one correct answer and not a "best" answer. In fact, though, if you look carefully at the question stem you will see that what the test makers want is the answer "that provides the most support for holding that they disagree about whether" etc, and so the matter for most support is not whether there is a disagreement or not but the matter for most support is for holding that they disagree about X or Y. To repeat, the issue is not whether there is a disagreement or not, the issue is what is the disagreement that the remarks provide the most support for. And this means we are to look for a disagreement among several choices, not look to see if a disagreement exists. Answer C offers a disagreement of whether art has become big business, Answer D focuses on the narrower issue of galleries. We then weigh the pluses and minus for Answer C or Answer D and choose Answer D.

Now, I will admit that I am somewhat responsible for some confusion here. In my very first posting I wrote : "Her statement that there are smaller, independent galleries instead supports her view that the the whole field has NOT become overly commercialized -- meaning, that she disagrees with the statement that contemporary art has become big business." This statement is not, in fact, accurate, for I should have inserted the word "could" between "instead" and "supports" and "could" in front of "disagrees" in the last phrase. For, as all of my subsequent postings attest, what Susan is saying is not nailed down, she could be arguing that contemporary art is big business, she could not be arguing this. I slipped up by not carefully detailing this important point, though I was careful to correct this error from then on.

And this speaks to the larger point, which I have repeatedly emphasized, which is that the wording of the remarks leaves open the possibility that when Susan says "I disagree" she is referring to commercializing contemporary art, not just remarking about galleries. Adding the second statement about galleries does not, really it does not, tie her to remarking only about galleries. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, doing so suggests a redundant conclusion for her first statement.

I fear you may no longer be listening, so I will end here. If you do respond tonight or tomorrow, I would be gratified if you would address the points I am making here about "most" and about how vagueness is inherent in what Susan says.

Regards,

John