#22 - The trustees of the Avonbridge summer drama workshop

[voodoochild]

PrepTest 6 - October 1992 LSAT Answers & Explanations - LR » Section #2:


I am confused about B. I read an explanation on the Internet that all the candidates are subjected to "inaccurate" tests, and that's what the goal of the audition is. However, the goal of the audition is to select the top 10% from each of the individual categories i.e. local and non-local user. HEnce, if the the results of the tests are inconclusive, how can we say that the plan will achieve its goal?

For instance, the goal of the LSAT is to identify candidates who have a great potential to be an excellent lawyers. What if the test results are inconclusive, essentially even a 5th grader (not that they cannot, but let's assume that they can't score well on the Lsat) will clear the test. Isn't the goal of the exam weakened?

Essentially, I am attacking the accuracy of the tests.

I am curious.

Thanks

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

Thanks for the question. Before delving into the problem itself, can you give us a bit of background on your LSAT preparation so far? What you've studied, how much you've studied, etc? I ask because that will help me frame my answer in the clearest possible terms. In the meantime, though, I'll try to give you some insight.

First, I'm not sure what internet explanation you are referring to, but I don't think the goal is to subject people to inaccurate tests. The goal, as stated in the stimulus, is to give scholarships to the most highly evaluated auditions. There is no reason to question whether that is the goal because, as we discuss in our courses and books, the author of an stimulus won't knowingly lie. Sure, they'll often use bad or flawed reasoning, but that's not intentional. It's a critical point of understanding for LR questions, and I can perhaps address this point further when I understand where you are in your studies.

Second, are the auditions themselves inconclusive? Not in my opinion. All they are doing is evaluating applicants, and if those are the results they are going to use, that's fine. It's just an audition, not an absolute litmus test of acting greatness. Do well on the audition, and that's good; do poorly and that's not good. The problem isn't in using auditions, but rather in the strange decision to distribute scholarships according to local/nonlocal status. As I used to say when I taught this question in class, some areas of the country are more rich in acting talent (i.e. LA or NYC because of the tv/film/stage industry base), and that biases the pool of candidates depending on where you are. If this was held in LA, the local pool might be far better than the nonlocal pool; the reverse might be true in Phoenix.

Finally, whether the goal will be achieved is clearly uncertain because the question stem itself indicates that there is a problem ("Which one of the following points out why the trustees' plan might not be effective in achieving its goal?"). So, in thinking that the audition process might not be the best, you are falling in line with the question stem itself. Answer choice (D) ultimately reflects why the testing process outlined in the stimulus is a questionable one in terms of reaching its stated goal.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you.

[voodoochild]

Dave,
I want to first thank you for writing an elaborate reply. I am a GMAT student, who is using LSAT material to practice more challenging material.

I acknowledge that there was a typo in my initial post. You are right that the goal of the trustee is to award scholarship to "highly evaluated auditions". We need to attack the link between "top 10% local/non-local" and "highly evaluated auditions".

I am good so far.

My question is that should I assume that B is true? Essentially, many times the questions say that "which of the following, if true, weakens the argument" => in such cases, I believe that we are not supposed to question the answer choices and take them for granted as a FACT.

However, in this particular question: I notice two things:

1) there is no "if true" in the question.
2) From your discussion about B), it seems that 2) is untrue. Essentially, if the author is saying that "I am using the audition to find, say, the best candidates then we have to trust him. However, B seems to go against what the author's intention are. B) tells me that the test that the author is going to use to evaluate the candidate wouldn't let him choose the best candidates. I believe that that's where the confusion is. I took B) for granted and attacked author's argument -- in other words, on one hand the author says that I am going to use the LSAT to evaluate the best candidates, on the other hand 'B) guy' says that the LSAT test is flawed because it's results are inaccurate. Can you please fill the gap? Am I on the right track?

Appreciate your response. I really love Powerscore's bible. I have all of them.

Thanks
Voodoo

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Voodoo,

Thanks for the kind words and for using our books--I really appreciate it! You are not the first GMAT student in search of a better CR score to come over to the LSAT LR world. It's a smart move

Let's take a look at your two questions:

1. Should you assume (B) is true even though there is no "if true" in the stem? Yes. The presence of the words "if true" are not necessary for you to take this as being valid. The general framework of Weaken question (of which this is one) dictates that you accept the answer choices and use them to attempt to undermine the argument.

2. I accept (B) as true, but even then, it still does not weaken the argument for me (and for the test makers as well). Here's why: the last line of the stimulus says the whole program is to "ensure that only the applicants with the most highly evaluated auditions are offered scholarships" (italics added). So, that back-and-forth conversation you were considering (and it is an approach I'm a big fan of), would sound like this:

Stimulus guy: We want to give the highest rated auditions the scholarships.

(B) guy: That's a nice goal, but the auditions themselves are inaccurate--some are advantaged and some are disadvantaged. You can't achieve it!

Stimulus guy: Naw, I don't care about that. I only care about the highest-rated auditions. As long as we give the scholarships to those people, then we reach our goal. The fact that the process itself may help or hurt someone doesn't change the fact that we can take the highest-rated audition people and give them the scholarships.

Let me know if that helps clear this up. Thanks again!

[voodoochild]

Thanks Dave! But B) says that common sense implies that "stimulus" guy wouldn't be able to achieve the goal (=select the best people) if his test is inaccurate. I know that I am definitely missing something, and I love the way LSAT tests such fine distinctions between "conducting the test" and "results of the test" Can you please provide some more insight?

Thanks

[Dave Killoran]

Anytime Voodoo!

The key is this: the Stimulus Guy never says he wants to select the best people; he just says he wants the best auditions. That's the key to the whole problem.

In part, I think you may (naturally) be looking at this the way a rational person would (!). You think, what's my goal? Answer: to get the best possible actors. So, that goal translates into "the best people." But, that's not what Stimulus Guy said, and if we stick to his words (which we need to because it is all we have), then the whole nature of the issue changes, and (B) becomes far less relevant.

Does that make sense? Let me know.

Thanks!

[voodoochild]

Dave,
I think that I see your point. Here's my summary:

Stimulus guy : I want to make sure that I select "highly evaluated" candidates - essentially the people who score top 10 percentile in, say, the LSAT.

B) guy : Well, good luck with that because your methodology of testing medical students with LSAT is flawed. You can't expect med students to perform better on the LSAT.

Stimulus guy: I don't care about the test and its performance. All I want to do is select the top 10% highly evaluated candidates from their auditions. I could even use a test that asks candidates to spell a,b,c..z! It's my test.

B) guy - You are crazy!
I think that I am getting close. However, I have one question - on your last post : You said that the objective is not to select the top 10% candidates but to have "highly evaluated auditions". Is it because the connection (or scope-shift) in the argument is between "the top 10% of candidates" and "highly effective" candidates? Can you please help me? Essentially, premise has "the top 10% of candidates in individual category" while the conclusion has "highly effective evaluations."

Can you please help me?

Thanks
Voodoo

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

Yes, I believe you have it. The weakness in the argument arises from the difference between the top 10% in each region (which is what their plan will produce) vs top 10% overall (which is what you and I would want, and which is not necessarily what the plan produces, which is why there is a problem here).

Does that finish it off? Please let me know. Thanks!

[voodoochild]

Thanks Dave! I got it ....

[yrivers]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for this thread. It's helping me understand the problem.

I actually chose option C with a similar approach. C states "The top 10 percent of local and nonlocal applicants might not need scholarships to the Avonbridge program."

As I finished reading the stimulus, I was looking for an answer that showed the flaw that local pool might have a much smaller pool (10%) vs. nonlocal pool would probably have a lot more qualified candidates for top 10%.

I don't quite understand why A, B, C, E can be eliminated with 100% assurance. Could you please help?

Thank you,
Yaesul