#16 - Media consultant: Electronic media are bound to bring

[GLMDYP]

Hi!
For this one, I think (E) should be the right answer. Particularly, I find I cannot interpret (D) under the context of the question stem. Which part of the question stem is "enabling an institution to arise" and which part of the question stem is "something necessary to the institution"?
Thanks!

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, GLDMYP,

This question is partially an error of conditional reasoning, so we'll look at that part first. And all errors of conditional reasoning can be simplified into the following: confusing sufficient and necessary conditions with each other.

This breaks down into Mistaken Reversals (where, if you're given A B, would be B A) and Mistaken Negations (where, if you're given A B, would be Not!A Not!B), but those are really the same mistake. In much the same way that a conditional reasoning relationship proves its own contrapositive (A B proves Not!B Not!A), so too is a Mistaken Reversal the contrapositive of a Mistaken Negation (B A proves Not!A Not!B, or it would if B A was true).

So for this one, it seems that the relatively inexpensive printed books were what allowed the traditional school to begin as an institution. In this way, the books were a sufficient condition (though probably not the only sufficient condition) for the traditional school to arise. This could be diagrammed like so:

Books School

Like I said, there are most likely other sufficient conditions for the school, but for now let's ignore those.

The stimulus goes on to say that relatively inexpensive printed books will be gradually fading out of our culture, replaced with electronic media. This could be seen as Not!Books. From this, he asserts, the traditional school will be doomed. This could be diagrammed:

Not!Books Not!School

Do you see how that's a Mistaken Negation? Just because books are sufficient to let a traditional school arise doesn't mean they're necessary for that school to arise.

The other part of this problem is that the argument fails to distinguish between that which a traditional school needs to arise and that which it needs to keep on going. Even if relatively inexpensive printed books were necessary for a traditional school to arise, it doesn't follow that they will remain a permanent requirement of traditional schools. We used to need horses and wagons to move large amounts of things around, but we no longer do.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau
PowerScore

[Kp13]

Hello,

I understand why answer choice D) is correct, but I picked C) and even now when I look at them, they seem very hard to tell apart.

To me, what makes answer choice C) correct is the fact that the author does presuppose that just because something can happen (i.e.: traditional school will not survive in our culture because the function of books in communicating information is gradually being taken over by electronic media), it will happen.

The only distinguishing feature that I can tell between C) and D) it that the correct answer choice D) is more concrete in pointing out the reasoning flaw - books are not the necessary condition and not a sufficient condition in the stimulus for the school's existence. We only know that they helped bring about the traditional school and the author treats books as a required condition.

Am I on the right track in my analysis?

Thank you for your help!

[Adam Tyson]

KP,

In order to pick an answer like C, you would have to be able to show that somewhere in the stimulus the author included a premise that whatever he is trying to prove can happen and then conclude that it therefore will happen. While it must be true that the author assumes that traditional schools can fail to survive, he never actually says it. Also, perhaps more importantly, he would have to base his conclusion primarily, maybe even solely, on that premise. In other words, the argument would have to be something explicit like "Traditional schools could fail to survive due to the increased prevalence of electronic media, therefore they will fail to survive."

That didn't happen here - the idea that they could fail was only embodied in the assumptions and in his conclusion, rather than in any premises. Additionally, he based his conclusion not merely on that possibility, but on some historical evidence about printed books. That should take answer C out of the running - it only covers a portion of the argument and not the heart of the argument.

I think there is something very important to note in your analysis, and that's your statement that answer D is "more concrete". I think it's fair to say that's pretty close to saying it's a better answer, isn't it? Remember that the instructions tell us to pick the best answer and not merely a good answer or even the correct answer. If D is more concrete, it's better, and that means that if you are stuck between C and D you MUST pick D, even if you think C is also possibly true. Don't let your feelings about an answer being good stop you from picking another answer that's better.

Again, good job and good thinking. Keep it up!

[avengingangel]

I get why D is correct. I was back and forth between D and E and ultimately chose E. What I still don't understand though, is why E is inferior to D? I feel like they are equally right, almost different sides of the same coin, if you will. Like, if D said something completely different (i.e WRONG), I would have no problem choosing E, and visa-versa. I think what aids in the confusion is the term, "facilitated," and what that means to the reader? It's like, the author is putting way too much value in the medium by which it operates, so much so that she mistakes it for a necessary condition of school.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi avengingangel,

Answer (E) states that the flaw is that the author "confuses the value of an institution with the medium by which it operates."

(E) can't be correct because that answer discusses value, but the passage does not. The "institution" in (E) refers to the "institution of the traditional school in our culture" discussed in the stimulus. However, the stimulus doesn't talk about that traditional school's value. Additionally, the conclusion is not talking about value. Rather, the author is arguing and predicting that electronic media will make the traditional school obsolete.

[ShannonOh22]

So is answer choice D saying the argument mistakes books as something that enables an institution to arise for something that is necessary for the institution (traditional schools) to arise? I diagrammed this (flawed) argument as:

Books -> Traditional School
Books -> Traditional School

Which shows a Mistaken Negation, not a Mistaken Reversal, which is what D describes...did I diagram incorrectly?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Shannon! Your diagram looks good to me. And you are correct that the Flaw here is a Mistaken Negation. But answer choice (D) does correctly describe a Mistaken Negation. It also correctly describes a Mistaken Reversal! Remember that Mistaken Negations and Mistaken Reversals are logically identical. They are contrapositives of each other, and both describe the same flaw: a mix-up of the sufficient and necessary conditions. Last week, I responded to this post of yours that raised a similar question:

https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewt ... 550#p71550

I'm going to re-post my response below.

The correct answer choice (A) for this problem correctly describes that the argument "treats a sufficient condition...as a necessary condition." That is an accurate description of a Mistaken Negation, which is why it's the correct answer. However, it's also an accurate description of a Mistaken Reversal. Why? Because Mistaken Negations and Mistaken Reversals are logically identical. One is just the contrapositive of the other. Watch. Let's say we have a simple conditional:

A B

The Mistaken Reversal of that conditional is

B A

The Mistaken Negation of that conditional is

A B

But notice that

A B

is just the contrapositive of

B A

So although they may look different at first, Mistaken Negations and Mistaken Reversals are actually the same thing. They are just logical contrapositives of the same flaw: the confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions. Pretty neat, huh? Once you're comfortable with this, then it doesn't really matter if the flaw is characterized as a Mistaken Negation or a Mistaken Reversal. All that matters is whether the argument confused sufficient and necessary conditions.

I want to especially highlight my last point: do not get hung up on asking yourself, "Is this a Mistaken Negation? Or is it a Mistaken Reversal?". They are logically identical. Instead ask yourself: "Does this argument mix-up the sufficient and necessary conditions?". If the answer to that question is yes, then look for the answer choice that correctly diagnoses that fatal Flaw. Once you find that answer choice, pick it! Whether that answer choice appears to be describing a Mistaken Negation or Mistaken Reversal is not important, because they can be described the same way. Hope that helps!

[Adam354]

Primary Flaw) Just because traditional schools were facilitated by availability of cheap books, doesn't mean availability of cheap books are necessary for current and future traditional school.

What was necessary to start Schools->Printed Books
False Assumption: Future Schools ->Printed Books

A) seems ruled out since the premise wasn't presupposed. The author gave reasoning.
B) Irrelevant and is ruled out.
C) At first glance this seems possible. "Presupposes that because something can happen it will happen."
However, the author didn't actually establish that it can happen in the first place. The only reason that seems possible, is because of the flaw in reasoning led us to consider whether printed books were necessary for future schools.
If printed books aren't necessary for future schools, then there is no evidence to justify that it "can happen."

That's my take on it at least after reading various explanations. A flaw that is only possible if another flaw is present, becomes secondary to that primary flaw.

For the question stem to not be flawed, imo, it would have had to say "what reasoning is most flawed." However, that seems to be an implied rule we have to learn for the LSAT, and so we can work with it.

D) This directly addresses the primary flaw.
E) Irrelevant and is ruled out (value is not synonymous with survival of school)

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Adam,

That reasoning looks great, perfect restatement of the flaw.

I completely understand your concern re multiple flaws. You are absolutely right, even good arguments might have some minor flaws, so you are definitely going to see more than one problem with a bad argument (even if the flaw is just that there isn't enough evidence).

With a flaw question you want to focus on the fatal flaw--the flaw in the argument that completely pulls it apart, rather than just weakening it. That's usually going to be a structural flaw, something that is fundamentally wrong with the author's reasoning. A wrong answer might be a flaw where, even if you fix it, the argument would still fall apart. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that if a flaw is only relevant when another flaw is present, it's secondary. Remember, you aren't just looking for a flaw in the argument as a whole, you are looking for a flaw in the reasoning itself. It's a subtle but important distinction.

Here's an imperfect analogy. Say I take my car to the shop because it stopped running and I ask why it's not working. Sure, maybe there's a scratch in the paint and chip in the windshield--these are definitely things that are wrong with the car--but the car could still run fine even if I don't fix them. But if the engine won't start, that's a fatal flaw because it's a problem that prevents the car from working entirely. Who cares if there's some chipped paint if I can't get the car moving? There are plenty of things about an argument that might make it imperfect, but a flaw in the reasoning is something that keeps it from working entirely.

Let's look at answer choice (C). The author doesn't really say that just because it is possible for electronic media to bring an end to traditional schooling means that it will happen. Instead, the author gives us another reason for why they think it will happen: because books are what lead to traditional schooling, and electronic media are replacing books. That word "just" does a lot of heavy lifting here.

I hope that helps. Adam also has an explanation above mine that goes into more detail on why (C) is incorrect, but please let us know if you have any follow-up questions!

Best,
Beth