LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 lanereuden
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: May 30, 2019
|
#67030
Okay so I formally logicicized this:
Normally if there is a fill in missing assumption/gap I can use this method:
__>___>___
Now I start with conclusion, which of course will refer to spots 1 and 3, and we leave middle spot blank


So then we have:
Not social process—>___—>ineffective
So abstractly this is equal to:

Not A—>__—>not c

So we have to get there.

Now we also know:
Developed insights—>social process
Which is abstractly equal to:
B—>A

Okay, so know we contrapose this:
Not A—>not b....that is, if not social process, then no insights developed


Okay so know we are in good shape to fill in chart:

Not A—>Not B—>not C

So know we see missing linking, the thing that isn’t given is clearly: if not b, then not c
Translating this, we get if no insights developed, then not effective


This matches answer choice D perfectly. Please tell me if I should be more cautious with this methodology...I know it works here and I expect it works with all missing link/assumption questions.

Also what’s the difference in testing between necessary and sufficient assumption questions? For necessary, you negate and see if argument falls apart.
For sufficient, you....???
 Jeremy Press
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#67393
Hi Lane,

Generally, I think you're on the right track with your understanding of this question, but I want to clarify one thing. Typically in a Justify question, the correct answer supplies a link that allows you to connect the argument's premises to its conclusion (in order to create a valid conclusion). In your "gap" understanding of setting up this particular question, I think you need one extra spot at the beginning: __ > __ > __ > __, occupied by the concept of "traditional classroom education" that is already part of both the premises and the conclusion. There's a line of reasoning in the premises that tells us some things about "traditional classroom education" (that it's not a social process, and does not develop insight), but that line of reasoning does not extend to the thing the conclusion wants to say about "traditional classroom education: that it's "ineffective." As you note, answer choice D provides the extra link that lets us move from what the premises say about traditional classroom education (that it's not a social process, and therefore does not develop insight) to what the conclusion says about it (that it's ineffective). It does so by allowing you to say that something that does not develop insight (which we already know traditional classroom education is, from the premises) is something that is ineffective (which is what the conclusion wants to prove about traditional classroom education).

You're right about the test of necessary assumptions that you describe in your post. The test of a sufficient assumption answer is what we call the Justify Formula: i.e., if you can add the answer choice to the premises in the stimulus, and the resulting argument leads to a valid conclusion, then the answer is correct.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy
 ronibass
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Jun 18, 2019
|
#68476
I chose answer choice C because it connected "social processes" that was in the first sentence to "rigid and artificial" in the second sentence. I read that this was one way to approach Justify questions in my practice book. I was wondering what I did wrong? I can see how D works but why did this approach not work for answer choice C
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#68612
Focus on the conclusion for a moment, ronibass, which is the first sentence. The author is trying to prove that traditional education is not effective. The rest of the stimulus makes no mention of effectiveness, but instead talks about insight, social processes, acting from outside, and being rigid and artificial.

The odd thing out - what we sometimes call the "rogue" element in the conclusion - is "ineffective," and so that is the thing we need to connect to in our answer. Any answer that fails to include or somehow address that concept of effectiveness has to be a wrong answer, because it won't be able to justify a claim that it doesn't even address!

Your strategic approach was sound, looking to connect rogue elements, but you have to make sure that whatever else you connect, you include the rogue element that is in the conclusion.
 ieric01
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Dec 09, 2019
|
#74918
Hey guys,

I tackled this question by thinking about its flaw...And then thinking about an answer choice that, if assumed, will eliminate that flaw.

Anyhow, I'd love to know if I correctly identified what was wrong with the argument. The questions I asked myself was "What is the author taking for granted?" and "What is the author failing to consider?" Love to hear your input!

=======


The argument says traditional classroom education is ineffective because it's not a social process, but what if it’s effective for other reasons?

Maybe it’s effective because it’s harder to cheat on exams when there’s a teacher present. Or maybe it’s effective because you have a teacher holding you accountable for completing your assignments on time. Now, based on the author’s premises it’s not clear why traditional classroom education is ineffective, although I feel like we could have assumed that it's ineffective because it doesn't lead to the development of insights. Anyhow, since it's not stated explicitly, it allows us to think about other cases where traditional education IS effective, thus weakening the author's conclusion.
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#75339
Hi ieric01!

When identifying flaws, I generally identify the conclusion, identify the premises, and then look for the gaps between the premises and the conclusion. Argument flaws are simply reasons why the premises as stated to not fully prove the conclusion as stated. So in this argument we have:

Conclusion: Traditional classroom education is ineffective
Premise: Traditional classroom education is not a social process
Premise: Social process is necessary for developing student insights (in other words, if it isn't a social process, it isn't developing student insights)

In analyzing the argument this way, it's easy to see that there's a gap between not developing student insights and being ineffective. We don't have a premise that specifically addresses effectiveness so that part of the conclusion is unsupported and that, therefore, is the flaw.

It's always good to look for ways to weaken arguments and you have identified that leaving a large gap in this argument leaves it open to several ways of attacking it. But when you're being asked specifically to justify an argument, you can't always simply look for an answer choice that eliminates a source of attack. In a Justify question, you are looking for an answer choice that when added to the premises will prove the conclusion 100%. It's a more specific task than just eliminating a possible way of weakening the argument.

For Justify questions, the most efficient way to prephrase is simply to look for the gap in the argument and then find the answer choice that connects the premises to the conclusion. Here, we're missing that link between insight and effectiveness; answer choice (D) connects those dots for us.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
User avatar
 PresidentLSAT
  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: Apr 19, 2021
|
#87401
Hi,

Was I crazy to rule out D because it talks about education? I'm so torn. The stimulus is about traditional classroom education which (in any circumstances) is very different from education in general. How is this justified?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1783
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#88249
President,

As the question type is Justify, an answer that goes beyond the specific situation of the stimulus is fine, as long as it proves the conclusion. If the answer choice applies to all education, then it's going to do what we want for the specific kind of education in the conclusion. Answer choice (D) covers all education. Then, a fortiori, it covers traditional classroom education.

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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