Q4

[Michelle5]

I know that utility maximization basically means that the good outcomes of an action must outweigh the bad. So when looking at this question

A) ACTION: use paradox RESULT: help describe
B) ACTION: use law RESULT: demonstrate (when they really mean prove!) something
C) ACTION: use quote RESULT: make a point
D) ACTION: use evidence RESULT: support a decision
E) ACTION: use quote RESULT: set a tone to start a bargaining session

So B has to be right because it is the most tangent and strong outcome? He is actually proving something versus assisting to describe/ supporting/ setting a tone?

I guess even when you compare it WITHIN the answer choice his accomplishment is much greater than persay in E it should be use the quote to WIN the session?

Any insight is helpful! Thank you!

[mlbrandow]

I just want to say thanks for that insight about the last part.

I came to this board up in arms over the test's usage of a physical law as analogous to a usage of some "economic principle."

However, it became clear to me in reading over it again that the question is asking us to make an analogy to what the author believes, not what may be actually true--this is a tendency (weakness?) of mine for sure.

Personally, I don't think we can equate the two, but the author sure seems to believe this economic principle is an immutable idea.


But in spite of that, your point about using the second half of each answer choice to parallel the author's structure is enough to answer this question. Although I could bicker about physical law vs economic principle, the only answer choice even remotely resembling the force of the author's argument is (B).

I chose (E) here, which in hindsight is just a rotten answer. A quote from a novel implies that this economic principle is not necessarily even based on anything factual at all (clearly not what the author intends), and there is no clear attempt at setting any kind of collegial tone here. He's simply expressing his view that the two sides can coexist. Perhaps there already was a tone, or he hoped to incite riot. And what does the start of a bargaining session have to do with anything? This debate in the passage has been ongoing, it isn't about to start.

[medli5531]

I think the best way to put it is that (B) is right because it is the only answer choice that reconciles two positions by using a principle/law/theory from another subject matter.

[demetri.blaisdell]

There's some great stuff here. I'm glad that all three of you contributed on this one. Analogy questions like this one are tough because you are forced to take some piece of the passage above that you aren't totally sure you understand and compare it to 5 brand new scenarios. A couple of common characteristics of answer choices:

(A) is the bully answer choice. It tries to use big words like "paradox" and "analogy" to make it sound attractive. But there isn't a paradox in the passage. Two seemingly-opposed viewpoints about costs and benefits of crime are coming together in one cost/benefit framework. Also, a new phenomenon is not really being described. Existing phenomena are being better explained and analyzed.

(D) is a classic LSAT fake-out. Obviously, it's missing the idea of two seemingly different things coming together. But it's about legal issues, which seems to make it more tempting.

And the right answer:

(B) gives us to lines that seem to diverge (which match up with the two viewpoints from the first paragraph. The law of optics (matches the utility maximization principle) shows that instead of diverging, the two seemingly-opposing lines actually connect. I agree that the principle to law thing is a little fuzzy but none of the other choices have any kind of reconciling at all.

I hope this little extra summary helps. Let me know if you have more questions.

Demetri