LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 James Finch
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2017
|
#50450
Hi JD,

Marife and Nguyen agree on the fundamental conditional premise that a murder mystery must give the viewers all the info needed to solve the murder, or:

MM :arrow: All Info (AI)

so:

AI:arrow: MM

Further, they agree that this particular movie didn't give viewers all the info to solve the murder. But Nguyen takes this to mean simply that it's not a murder mystery (and gives further evidence to support this conclusion) while Marife assumes that:

AIthis movie:arrow: MMthis movie :arrow: Bad Moviethis movie

This last inference by Marife isn't supported by any premises, and thus represents a leap in logic that Nguyen argues against.

Hope this clears things up!
 JD180
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Aug 09, 2018
|
#50456
I absolutely 100% agree and thank you for your reply, as long as we clarify and agree that both marife and nguyen think that this is NOT a mystery movie. If the point of contention is whether or not the movie is bad, then this means the correct answer is A, not C. I have been performing the same analysis as you for this question, but apparently the answer is not, as your work would conclude:

[A) Whether the movie was a bad one],

but instead the answer is:

[C) Whether the movie should be classified as a murder mystery]

They absolutely would NOT disagree about whether the movie should be classified as a murder mystery (they both firmly believe it is not), and this is what is infuriating to me. In all honesty I don't even like answer A, since the enjoyment derived by Nguyen was not explicitly stated.

I still hold that there is no answer to this question, and that LSAT makers done goofed. I'll give fat props to anyone who can show me the light here without doing contorting their brains in deference to the LSAT Gods.

Dave? Help?
Last edited by JD180 on Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#56764
I'm going to have to disagree with you, JD180. Marife absolutely DOES think this movie is a murder mystery, and should be treated as one. If she didn't think it was a murder mystery and ought to be treated as one, then why would she have measured it using the standards for a murder mystery? It's a bad murder mystery, per Marife, but it's still a murder mystery.
 JD180
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Aug 09, 2018
|
#56770
Adam Tyson wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you, JD180. Marife absolutely DOES think this movie is a murder mystery, and should be treated as one. If she didn't think it was a murder mystery and ought to be treated as one, then why would she have measured it using the standards for a murder mystery? It's a bad murder mystery, per Marife, but it's still a murder mystery.
Your thought is a bit of a leap unfortunately. There are many reasons people do things in life, but it's not our job on the LSAT to bias ourselves one way or another. She could have treated it as a murder mystery initially for many reasons: She might have had the impression it was a murder mystery going in based on the previews, or she might have been told by a friend it was a murder mystery. None of this matters, just suggesting "why would she have measured it that way?" is a faulty way to assess any situation.

Based on the facts of the question that I outlined above very clearly without interjecting "why would she etc etc if she didn't etc etc?", it is clear that it is not a murder mystery simply on a mathematical basis.

It looks like the staff have difficulty with this question, so I'll let it be.
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5849
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#57014
JD180 wrote:
Adam Tyson wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you, JD180. Marife absolutely DOES think this movie is a murder mystery, and should be treated as one. If she didn't think it was a murder mystery and ought to be treated as one, then why would she have measured it using the standards for a murder mystery? It's a bad murder mystery, per Marife, but it's still a murder mystery.
Your thought is a bit of a leap unfortunately. There are many reasons people do things in life, but it's not our job on the LSAT to bias ourselves one way or another. She could have treated it as a murder mystery initially for many reasons: She might have had the impression it was a murder mystery going in based on the previews, or she might have been told by a friend it was a murder mystery. None of this matters, just suggesting "why would she have measured it that way?" is a faulty way to assess any situation.

Based on the facts of the question that I outlined above very clearly without interjecting "why would she etc etc if she didn't etc etc?", it is clear that it is not a murder mystery simply on a mathematical basis.

It looks like the staff have difficulty with this question, so I'll let it be.
Hi JD,

This is an interesting conversation, and I don't disagree that there's a bit of a leap here in what Marife says. The question is whether LSAC sees that leap as problematic. Them selecting (C) as the answer shows us that they don't. So let's talk a bit more about it, although I suspect we'll succeed only in explaining their position. Those that see this problem as flawed likely won't be swayed by my explanation below :-D

This has never been my favorite problem, and I wish the word "required" had not been used by Marife since it is such a strong word and one that in LSAT context brings with it a lot of meaning. That said, I understand the argument some students make about Marife not thinking this is a murder mystery. As stated, it appears to be contrapositive, and since a necessary condition didn't occur, the thinking is that the sufficient can't have occurred. But, we know LSAC thinks Marife sees this as a murder mystery, so why do they think that? To me, it comes down to the idea that the conditional relationship being cited is then used to draw a conclusion about the quality of the movie. Marife uses the violation information to substantiate (in her mind) the idea that the movie is bad. The movie failed to do what it was supposed to do (because murder mysteries are supposed to provide all the clues), and thus she concludes not that it isn't a murder mystery, but instead that it's bad. Now, I know based on the comments you posted that you don't agree there, and that's completely reasonable:) There is no denying we have to see/recognize the assumption she makes as she goes from the violation idea to it's a "bad movie," and I'd prefer that hole wasn't there. You have to stretch a bit with that assumption—which I realize is something that is bothering you—but to me it's a reasonable enough stretch (and the LSAT allows you to make assumptions when reasonable). You don't see it as reasonable, hence the differing opinions.

About that contrapositive, my take there is that she wouldn't bring that "requirement" up unless she accepted it was a murder mystery. As I said above, "The movie failed to do what it was supposed to do (because murder mysteries are supposed to provide all the clues)," and that is a key point to me: she classified it as a murder mystery and then was unhappy because it didn't do something she expected it do to. That doesn't mean it's NOT a murder mystery in her eyes, just that it's a deficient one. I don't see her conditional relationship as a strict conditional in the sense we think of it on the LSAT. Instead, it's more like a conversation where someone says, "You HAVE to go to this party"—the "have" is a desire not a defining necessity. Again, I realize that your take is different, and I'm okay with that. I don't think I can change your view here, but as long as you know what LSAC thinks what they do, then I'm fine.

Thanks!
 JD180
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Aug 09, 2018
|
#57015
Dave Killoran wrote:
JD180 wrote:
Adam Tyson wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you, JD180. Marife absolutely DOES think this movie is a murder mystery, and should be treated as one. If she didn't think it was a murder mystery and ought to be treated as one, then why would she have measured it using the standards for a murder mystery? It's a bad murder mystery, per Marife, but it's still a murder mystery.
Your thought is a bit of a leap unfortunately. There are many reasons people do things in life, but it's not our job on the LSAT to bias ourselves one way or another. She could have treated it as a murder mystery initially for many reasons: She might have had the impression it was a murder mystery going in based on the previews, or she might have been told by a friend it was a murder mystery. None of this matters, just suggesting "why would she have measured it that way?" is a faulty way to assess any situation.

Based on the facts of the question that I outlined above very clearly without interjecting "why would she etc etc if she didn't etc etc?", it is clear that it is not a murder mystery simply on a mathematical basis.

It looks like the staff have difficulty with this question, so I'll let it be.
Hi JD,

This is an interesting conversation, and I don't disagree that there's a bit of a leap here in what Marife says. The question is whether LSAC sees that leap as problematic. Them selecting (C) as the answer shows us that they don't. So let's talk a bit more about it, although I suspect we'll succeed only in explaining their position. Those that see this problem as flawed likely won't be swayed by my explanation below :-D

This has never been my favorite problem, and I wish the word "required" had not been used by Marife since it is such a strong word and one that in LSAT context brings with it a lot of meaning. That said, I understand the argument some students make about Marife not thinking this is a murder mystery. As stated, it appears to be contrapositive, and since a necessary condition didn't occur, the thinking is that the sufficient can't have occurred. But, we know LSAC thinks Marife sees this as a murder mystery, so why do they think that? To me, it comes down to the idea that the conditional relationship being cited is then used to draw a conclusion about the quality of the movie. Marife uses the violation information to substantiate (in her mind) the idea that the movie is bad. The movie failed to do what it was supposed to do (because murder mysteries are supposed to provide all the clues), and thus she concludes not that it isn't a murder mystery, but instead that it's bad. Now, I know based on the comments you posted that you don't agree there, and that's completely reasonable:) There is no denying we have to see/recognize the assumption she makes as she goes from the violation idea to it's a "bad movie," and I'd prefer that hole wasn't there. You have to stretch a bit with that assumption—which I realize is something that is bothering you—but to me it's a reasonable enough stretch (and the LSAT allows you to make assumptions when reasonable). You don't see it as reasonable, hence the differing opinions.

About that contrapositive, my take there is that she wouldn't bring that "requirement" up unless she accepted it was a murder mystery. As I said above, "The movie failed to do what it was supposed to do (because murder mysteries are supposed to provide all the clues)," and that is a key point to me: she classified it as a murder mystery and then was unhappy because it didn't do something she expected it do to. That doesn't mean it's NOT a murder mystery in her eyes, just that it's a deficient one. I don't see her conditional relationship as a strict conditional in the sense we think of it on the LSAT. Instead, it's more like a conversation where someone says, "You HAVE to go to this party"—the "have" is a desire not a defining necessity. Again, I realize that your take is different, and I'm okay with that. I don't think I can change your view here, but as long as you know what LSAC thinks what they do, then I'm fine.

Thanks!
Hi Dave,

Not much I can say there. You've hedged it all and enough. We as the reader know for a fact it isn't a movie mystery given the information. But does Marife know this?

Maybe Marife is a little dense and would still think its a murder mystery even though it didn't meet the requirements of one, and so she's calling it a "bad (murder mystery) movie." This is the assumption that so many are making.

Or maybe, if we don't put words into Marife's mouth, we don't need assumptions to come to a conclusion:

1) She called it a bad movie. I wonder why she didn't call it a bad murder mystery. Well
2) it didn't meet the requirements of a murder mystery.

done. You would then need to put more information that isn't there in order to come to the LSAC conclusion - "Ohhh you know, she still thinks its a murder mystery, it's just that she didn't really think about her own statement that it failed to meet the requirements. So she still thinks it is one. She's just a little dumb, she still thinks its a murder mystery, just a bad murder mystery!"

That's a pretty big assumption if you ask me.
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5849
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#57021
JD180 wrote:This is the assumption that so many are making.

...

That's a pretty big assumption if you ask me.
What I've tried to do is explain what LSAC thinks, which is the same thing others have been doing. I agree it's a leap there, and the question is whether it's too much of a leap. LSAC doesn't think so (nor do I) but you disagree. I think we all understand the issues at hand, so we reach a sort of impasse as far as being able to get anything more out of this one. The best takeaway is to look closely at why they thought what they thought because it's only through that approach that we learn what they might do next time. There's plenty of problems on the test with little holes in them, but rarely do they think the hole is fatal. In this case, they didn't so this is within their realm of allowability.

Anyway, good discussion!
 med2law
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: Aug 15, 2020
|
#78633
I just had to say that though it may not have been intended, reading through the entire discussion regarding this question has improved me with respect to understanding the LSAT. I believe JD180 is correct - but it doesn't matter because, at the end of the day, the Test Makers are always right, which is the perspective from which Dave approaches it. I assume this is because he knows that approach is in our best interest - given the goals which bring us all here. Nevertheless, I think this is a very healthy and productive discussion for those who can stomach it! I am also very astounded by the response rate of the Administrators on this website! This is fun. :-D

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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