#8 - Essayist: Knowledge has been defined as a true belief

[LSAT2018]

I was completely lost with this question. How do I make sense of the use of hypotheticals in arriving at an argument?

Ps. is this question similar to the reasoning in Practice Test 20 Section 1 Question 21 where a hypothetical is used?

[Brook Miscoski]

LSAT2018,

The way to make sense of the stimulus is to follow the author step by step:

1. Knowledge has a definition.

2. Some people criticize the definition.

3. The author considers and rejects the critique.

When you see the stimulus on that level, it does not matter whether the wording or concepts were convoluted. In this case, the author rejects the idea that the possibility of clairvoyance challenges the definition of knowledge. His rejection states that we don't believe that clairvoyance is reliable. That eliminates everything but (A) and (B), improving your odds of guessing correctly. Since the author rejects the idea that clairvoyance leads to knowledge, we choose (A).

[aheartofsunshine]

Hi there.

I am having a hard time eliminating answer choice E. The previous reply on this post says "his rejection states that we don't believe that clairvoyance is reliable. This eliminates everything but A and B." How does that eliminate everything but A and B? Answer choice E states that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge (because it's not reliable). To me it seems like the author proves it's not a case of knowledge and does not fit into the definition.

I am seeing now why answer choice is A, because the author says that we aren't actually challenging the definition of knowledge, we are upset about one of the components of the definition not being satisfied. Therefore, there is nothing actually wrong with the definition.

Any help on understanding how to have confidence in eliminating answer choice E? Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi aheartofsunshine!

The essayist is not demonstrating that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge; rather, the essayist is demonstrating that clairvoyance is not a reliable process for forming knowledge. So if a person says "I know the Cleveland Browns are going to win the 2021 Super Bowl because I have clairvoyance" the author would argue that the Browns winning the Super Bowl is not knowledge because the claim was formed through clairvoyance, and clairvoyance is not a reliable process for forming beliefs. Clairvoyance is the process; knowledge is the belief. Again, the author is not arguing that clairvoyance is not knowledge, he's arguing that it is not a reliable process for forming beliefs and so, therefore, it is the claims based on clairvoyance (e.g. the Browns winning the 2021 Super Bowl) which do not meet the definition of knowledge. It's a subtle distinction, but those subtle distinctions are important on this tricky test!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[hinarizvi]

I narrowed the answers to A and E for this one, but am having a hard time figuring out how/why A is right. I initially thought the right answer was E, as the author says we do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process. If something isn't a reliable process, then beliefs coming from that cannot be defined as knowledge - Is that correct? That said, I see why it's not E as the author hasn't demonstrated that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge, they have only stated that clairvoyance isn't a reliable process.

Regarding A, I'm getting lost in the language of it. "Asserting that the objection is based on a belief about the reliability of clairvoyance rather than on the nature of knowledge or its definition" - How is the author doing this? Is it in saying that if we believed in clairvoyance (as a reliable process), we would accept knowledge claims made on the basis of it?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi hinarizvi,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading the earlier posts by Brook and Kelsey (Post #2 and Post #4) as you may find them helpful.

Answer E is tricky, as it's almost getting to the right idea.

As Kelsey explains, clairvoyance refers to the process of obtaining knowledge, not the knowledge itself. This is one of the reasons that Answer E is incorrect. The other reason is that the argument does not in fact demonstrate that clairvoyance is not knowledge or even that clairvoyance is not a reliable process. The argument is based on beliefs about clairvoyance rather than whether or not clairvoyance is actually reliable in reality. The argument states that if (hypothetically) people believed that clairvoyance were reliable, then the claims made via clairvoyance would be considered knowledge.

Answer A matches what is really happening in the argument. The argument is really about whether the definition of knowledge is correct. The argument defends the definition by pointing out that the objection raised by the clairvoyance hypothetical doesn't in fact disprove the definition because clairvoyance doesn't meet the criteria of being a reliable method based on our beliefs about clairvoyance. In other words, the definition of knowledge is fine, but the claims made based on clairvoyance would not be considered knowledge so long as we didn't consider clairvoyance a reliable method, as required by the definition.