#24 - Professor: A person who can select a beverage from

[na02]

I'm still unclear about the difference in example & analogy (despite re-reading Adam's post above )
Could anyone please provide me with an example of an analogy, that is, what would the professor have had to say in order for C to be correct?

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi na02,

First, let me congratulate you for asking the right question! It's always helpful on both Flaw in Reasoning and Method of Reasoning questions to ask of wrong answers, "what would the argument look like if this answer were correct?" If you can generally answer that question, that will give you the ability both to identify correct answers and confidently eliminate incorrect answers. Let's try it with answer choice C!

As it turns out, it's a little difficult to imagine a (simple, LSAT-stimulus-length) argument from analogy that would lead to this same "general rule" type of conclusion: the (paraphrased) rule in the conclusion being, "The extent of differences among alternatives must be considered when measuring meaningful freedom."

But, if we make some slight adjustments, maybe we can get close and clarify the issue (everything in quotations below is my attempted reworking):

"We know that a person who can select a beverage from among 50 varieties of cola is less free than one who has only these 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple juice, milk, and water. Similarly, it should follow that a person who can choose between hundreds of types of movies is less free than a person who can only choose between a television show, a documentary, a play, a musical and a ballet. Thus, it is highly likely that Adam, who has only hundreds of movies available for his viewing entertainment, is less free than Eve, who has only the latter options."

Notice how in this admittedly simple reworking, the conclusion hinges on an underlying similarity between two distinct cases (one, a choice among beverages; the second, a choice among entertainment options). We don't have that comparison in the stimulus of question 24. We would need another specific instance, in addition to the beverage example, in order to have a true analogy. Without that additional instance, there is no "comparison.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[ashpine17]

I still don't see how this is an example and not an analogy...and how can you tell that the lsat sentence is a "general principle"

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ashpine,

Let's think about the things we need for an analogy v general principle/example.

For an analogy, you need two similar but distinct cases. That means you have two specific examples that are about different things that in some way are alike in a meaningful way. Analogies allow you to compare two different things to show similarities. In this example, you have two cases, but they are about the same thing. They are both cases of how someone can select a beverage. There's no attempt to show a meaningful comparison between the two.

For a general principle/example, you need a specific situation, and a broad statement of a rule. That's what we see here. We have a specific example of the ways in which you could select a beverage, followed by a general rule that could apply to many different sorts of situations. The final sentence about the different options for decisions could apply to a broad set of circumstances beyond the specifics of the beverage selection. It could apply to choosing a place to live (someone picking one of 50 identical townhouses in a single complex has fewer choices than someone who is choosing between a house, apartment, a townhouse, or a condo in different parts of the city). It could apply to picking a place to eat (someone choosing between 50 different McDonald's locations has fewer options than someone picking from four different restaurants). That's the key to a general principle---it's broad and can apply to a wide array of situations beyond that in the stimulus.

Hope that helps!

[Sammiewhammie]

Hi,

I incorrectly chose B for this question.

I lined up the argument with the answer choice. It’s drawing a conclusion about a particular case (50 colas vs 5 choices) on the basis of a general principle (meaningful freedom cannot be measured by # of alternatives available).

I find that B make somewhat sense but I guess the “basis of a general principle” or “particular case” is the determining factor to this choice being incorrect. Is that on the right track?

Thanks,
Sam

[Adam Tyson]

Answer B is backwards, Sam. The conclusion in this stimulus begins with the phrase "It is clear," and what follows is the general principle about meaningful freedom. The beverage example is the evidence used to support this principle. So the author isn't using the principle to support a particular case, but is instead using a particular case to support a more general principle.

[ashpine17]

tbh the example given for an analogy with the theater and movies sounds like an example too??

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Exactly ash! It IS another example. That's Adam's point here. His reworked case that he gives compares two different examples, and that's what makes it an analogy. By comparing the case of the beverages to the case of the entertainment, he structures his argument as a whole as an example of an analogy. The stimulus we have, however, does not have a comparison case (like the entertainment options in Adam's example). That's why the stimulus cannot be an analogy---there's no concept of case A being like case B.

Hope that helps!