Q5

[amil91]

I got this question right, but I would like some thoughts on it as I was really torn between answers A and B and picked A basically as a guess between the two.

To me the two choices are so similar that is splitting hairs to decide between the two, I decided on A because the passage was certainly not trying to decide between the two sides. However, the wording in choice A was alarming to me as well because it used the words 'general principle' vs. 'economic principle' in choice B, and when referring to the text it refers to the principle as an economic principle.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[tommywallach]

Hey Amil,

Hmm. I don't see why you're bothered. The second paragraph literally starts off by saying "The economic principle that reconciles the two positions is that of utility maximization." That's a general principle right there. You must know by now that they don't have to call everything by the exact same words. A big economic principle is also a general principle.

(B) As you said, the argument doesn't choose between the sides, but reconciles them.

(C) The principle doesn't discredit the two sides, it reconciles them.

(D) This doesn't get to the reconciliation at all, of which there's only one, rather than two.

(E) This gets things backwards. There is a general principle, but it reconciles two sides, rather than emphasizing their difference.

Hope that helps!

-t

[amil91]

Hey Amil,

Hmm. I don't see why you're bothered. The second paragraph literally starts off by saying "The economic principle that reconciles the two positions is that of utility maximization." That's a general principle right there. You must know by now that they don't have to call everything by the exact same words. A big economic principle is also a general principle.

(B) As you said, the argument doesn't choose between the sides, but reconciles them.

(C) The principle doesn't discredit the two sides, it reconciles them.

(D) This doesn't get to the reconciliation at all, of which there's only one, rather than two.

(E) This gets things backwards. There is a general principle, but it reconciles two sides, rather than emphasizing their difference.

Hope that helps!

-t

You're right, I think I was just over thinking it a bit. Thanks!

[erikwoodward10]

This is so stupid. It's a question of semantics, isn't it? Either A/B could reasonably be correct.

If this were LR, I'd be suspicious of A because an "economic principle" isn't necessarily a "general principle"... A distinction like this would eliminate a NA/SA/Flaw/etc. And that's exactly why I eliminated it.

B is problematic because it says that the principle is applied to "decide between them"... But, ok, sure, this could be true, we decided NOT to decide between them. We decided to take both. But I went with this because, while not perfect, I can't assume that the two terms are the same.

Is B wrong because we have to take the answer choice literally for what it says (or, because we dont decide between the two--we pick both)?

However this burden of proof fails A as well--how can we assume that an "economic principle" is synonymous with a "general principle"? I would think that these are actually two very different things!

[Camiller]

This is so stupid. It's a question of semantics, isn't it? Either A/B could reasonably be correct.

If this were LR, I'd be suspicious of A because an "economic principle" isn't necessarily a "general principle"... A distinction like this would eliminate a NA/SA/Flaw/etc. And that's exactly why I eliminated it.

B is problematic because it says that the principle is applied to "decide between them"... But, ok, sure, this could be true, we decided NOT to decide between them. We decided to take both. But I went with this because, while not perfect, I can't assume that the two terms are the same.

Is B wrong because we have to take the answer choice literally for what it says (or, because we dont decide between the two--we pick both)?

However this burden of proof fails A as well--how can we assume that an "economic principle" is synonymous with a "general principle"? I would think that these are actually two very different things!

Will one of the LSAT geeks please address this? (Preferably Patrick)

[JorieB701]

This is so stupid. It's a question of semantics, isn't it? Either A/B could reasonably be correct.

If this were LR, I'd be suspicious of A because an "economic principle" isn't necessarily a "general principle"... A distinction like this would eliminate a NA/SA/Flaw/etc. And that's exactly why I eliminated it.

B is problematic because it says that the principle is applied to "decide between them"... But, ok, sure, this could be true, we decided NOT to decide between them. We decided to take both. But I went with this because, while not perfect, I can't assume that the two terms are the same.

Is B wrong because we have to take the answer choice literally for what it says (or, because we dont decide between the two--we pick both)?

However this burden of proof fails A as well--how can we assume that an "economic principle" is synonymous with a "general principle"? I would think that these are actually two very different things!

Will one of the LSAT geeks please address this? (Preferably Patrick)

Yea, I have to agree that the distinctions between A and B aren't as clear cut and obvious as was implied above in an otherwise helpful explanation..

I wasn't feeling the "general" principle thing either, although in hindsight I can accept, though not perfect, it's a better description of what happened than B is. Also, "resolve the conflict between them" gave me pause because for a moment I was thinking, "but the author didn't actually think the two sides were in conflict with each other at all." But yea, I get that it was stated that the two theories are on opposing sides of an ongoing debate.

So, still going to try and re-bump this for a response. I agree with quoted^ that there's enough happening here to allow for some confusion. Thanks!

[JasmineL82]

I initially was also turned off by the use general instead of economic and also by "resolve" because I didn't get that there was much of a resolution between the different sides but now that I'm reviewing I believe line 56-57 where it says "the two positions are not fundamentally in conflict" is what (possibly?) ensures that A is the better answer choice as opposed to B.