- Posts: 70
- Joined: Aug 15, 2019
Dave Killoran wrote: I'm not sure how to respond to your post other than to say that this is how LSAC sees it, and so we really have no choice here but to try to understand why they see it this way. Trust me, I've been in the position of disagreeing with the LSAT before, but generally it's a losing battle (actually, it always is lol).Hi Dave,
In this case, what we have is a first definition of anarchy as "the absence of government," and a later definition of anarchy as "chaos." That is a leap that I personally see as being too big since I wouldn't equate those two things (while they could ultimately turn out the same, there is no guarantee of that).
I appreciated your response to the other user in your above post, and had a quick follow up question. In your podcasts about Flaw, you mention certain Flaw questions in which none of the answers immediately jump out/seem to be correct. Would this question qualify as one of those? I thought each answer choice could have each applied, albeit in equally weak ways...
A) I kept this as a contender just because it was the first one and wasn't obviously wrong, but to be honest, I completely skipped over the fact that anarchy was actually defined in 2 different ways. Reading it back, I see it now. But obviously the goal is to recognize something like that WHILE taking the test!
B) if read a certain way, this could arguably be an example of yet another definition of anarchy - "laissez-faire capitalism taken to its logical extreme"...and although the argument doesn't exactly say it's "rejected", that idea is certainly implied by the context, and the sentence that follows "But these theorists' views ignore the fundamental principle..."
C) the truth or falsity of a view not being determined by the number of people who believe it is inherently a correct statement, no? And the argument does deal with numbers..."a few theorists", "some theorists", "one writer", etc.
D) I chose this answer, because I felt the argument did presume "an acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order", as stated in the second-to-last sentence of the stimulus...but I see now the word "flourish" disqualifies this answer
E) Again, this is implied by the overall tone of the argument. The author starts out by classifying the view as "extreme", and then goes on to say "the theorists' views ignore the fundamental principle of social philosophy (interject presumption about successful society needing to be peaceful), and [that it] accordingly deserves no further attention."
I also get tripped up by the fact that "key term shifts meaning" is generally an incorrect trap answer choice. I know it's not ideal to generalize, but after umpteen thousand LSAT questions, I have fallen into that habit.
For the last 2 months of my study, I've been trying my level best to get "inside" the minds of the LSAT writers, but I'm having trouble differentiating between their version of "real", and a basic level of interpretation that comes from context and tone when reading a stimulus. Would you be kind enough to point out where I am going wrong on my interpretation of the answer choices as detailed above? Any insight at all (especially from you - or Jon, I haven't forgotten about Jon ) would be GREATLY appreciated!