LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- jasonleb1
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 32
- Joined: April 09th, 2015
Q22 - Food co-ops
I originally had C, the correct answer and then changed it to B. Can someone break this question down for me? I didn't even see the flaw in the original stimulus which made it much harder to try to find a matching flaw...
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 6 times.
Re: Q22 - Food co-ops
When you can't find a Flaw, it's always a good idea to assign yourself the Anti-Conclusion as a client:
Let's say we're trying to convince a jury that "food co-ops are more expensive than supermarkets".
Opposing counsel is arguing that "food co-ops are cheaper than supermarkets".
She gets up and says, "Of course food co-ops are cheaper. They are a type of consumer cooperative and consumer cooperatives are usually a cheaper way of getting a given product."
What could we say?
We could maybe say, "Yup, consumer cooperatives are USUALLY cheaper. But food co-ops are an exception to that general rule."
(consider the recent Whole Foods scandal about $6 asparagus water -- picture small, hippie, food co-ops. "Yikes, $5 for milk??!" "Yes, but it's compassionate milk.")
This is the same flaw as saying, "A Mini Cooper is a type of automobile. Automobiles are usually capable of comfortably transporting a family of four. Therefore a Mini Cooper is capable of comfortably transporting a family of four."
INGREDIENTS FOR OUR FLAWED RECIPE:
P1: X is a type of Y.
P2: Y's are usually Z.
Thus, X is Z.
(A) this only has one premise and no subtype.
(B) same as (A).
(C) Biking (X) is a type of Private Transportation (Y).
Private Transportation (Y) is usually More Polluting Than Public (Z).
Thus, Biking (X) is More Polluting Than Public (Z)
(D) No subtype.
(E) No subtype.
To get back to your comment that you couldn't see the original flaw, make sure you appreciate how (at least in this case), it would be worth it to keep poring over the original argument a couple more times so that you know what you're looking for.
By figuring out that the wiggle room in the original argument is that Food Co-ops belong to a CATEGORY that is USUALLY a certain way, we barely need to spend ANY time analyzing the four wrong answers.
Let's say we're trying to convince a jury that "food co-ops are more expensive than supermarkets".
Opposing counsel is arguing that "food co-ops are cheaper than supermarkets".
She gets up and says, "Of course food co-ops are cheaper. They are a type of consumer cooperative and consumer cooperatives are usually a cheaper way of getting a given product."
What could we say?
We could maybe say, "Yup, consumer cooperatives are USUALLY cheaper. But food co-ops are an exception to that general rule."
(consider the recent Whole Foods scandal about $6 asparagus water -- picture small, hippie, food co-ops. "Yikes, $5 for milk??!" "Yes, but it's compassionate milk.")
This is the same flaw as saying, "A Mini Cooper is a type of automobile. Automobiles are usually capable of comfortably transporting a family of four. Therefore a Mini Cooper is capable of comfortably transporting a family of four."
INGREDIENTS FOR OUR FLAWED RECIPE:
P1: X is a type of Y.
P2: Y's are usually Z.
Thus, X is Z.
(A) this only has one premise and no subtype.
(B) same as (A).
(C) Biking (X) is a type of Private Transportation (Y).
Private Transportation (Y) is usually More Polluting Than Public (Z).
Thus, Biking (X) is More Polluting Than Public (Z)
(D) No subtype.
(E) No subtype.
To get back to your comment that you couldn't see the original flaw, make sure you appreciate how (at least in this case), it would be worth it to keep poring over the original argument a couple more times so that you know what you're looking for.
By figuring out that the wiggle room in the original argument is that Food Co-ops belong to a CATEGORY that is USUALLY a certain way, we barely need to spend ANY time analyzing the four wrong answers.
2 posts Page 1 of 1