Q7 - Sam: In a recent survey

[ldanny24]

I don't know if its just me, but wouldn't E be a better choice for this question. C doesn't necessarily weaken the evidence for Sam's conclusion, since purchasers of Starlight automobile could still be said to be satisfied after one year of owning their car. Yeah, you can say that after a few years their opinion might change, but up till that first year they own the car, defect free, they can still be highly satisfied.

Tiya introduces a consideration that may potentially change the opinions of purchasers, but until we know that wouldn't C be outside the scope of this argument?

Also, E sounds better to me because the conclusion is "Starlight automobiles are remarkably free from such defects", yet with Tiya's new information given a few years, this conclusion will most likely prove to be false.

Thanks!

[aileenann]

I agree that Tiya's argument does not *necessarily* mean that Sam's premise and conclusion will not stand the test of time, but it suggests strong grounds not to trust the premise and therefore not to trust the conclusion. Essentially what Tiya does is directly weaken Sam's unspoken assumption that the 95 percent satisfaction is indicative of the general level of people who have cars without a manufacturing defect. In this way she also undermines the usefulness of his premise in supporting his conclusion. Even if her suggestion does not 100% guarantee that Sam is wrong in relying on this premise, it weakens our confidence, and this weakens the premise. Remember with weaken especially, we don't always need to say that a weakening statement definitely undermines a premise or conclusion - it's enough to cast doubt. So I think (C) is a good answer.

If anything, (E) is too strong because Tiya's response does not actually imply that Sam's conclusion is false. It's actually this wording that would require more definitiveness. Implying something is false means that Tiya has actively shown now that Sam's conclusion cannot be true. But all Tiya has done is suggest that Sam's conclusion is not necessary true because it may not stand the test of time. We need to wait and see, which is not the same as *now* implying that Sam's statement is false.

Does that make sense? I realize this is a nuanced distinction, but it's a robust one you want to feel comfortable with going forward.

[rfrahman]

I agree that Tiya's argument does not *necessarily* mean that Sam's premise and conclusion will not stand the test of time, but it suggests strong grounds not to trust the premise and therefore not to trust the conclusion. Essentially what Tiya does is directly weaken Sam's unspoken assumption that the 95 percent satisfaction is indicative of the general level of people who have cars without a manufacturing defect. In this way she also undermines the usefulness of his premise in supporting his conclusion. Even if her suggestion does not 100% guarantee that Sam is wrong in relying on this premise, it weakens our confidence, and this weakens the premise. Remember with weaken especially, we don't always need to say that a weakening statement definitely undermines a premise or conclusion - it's enough to cast doubt. So I think (C) is a good answer.

If anything, (E) is too strong because Tiya's response does not actually imply that Sam's conclusion is false. It's actually this wording that would require more definitiveness. Implying something is false means that Tiya has actively shown now that Sam's conclusion cannot be true. But all Tiya has done is suggest that Sam's conclusion is not necessary true because it may not stand the test of time. We need to wait and see, which is not the same as *now* implying that Sam's statement is false.

Does that make sense? I realize this is a nuanced distinction, but it's a robust one you want to feel comfortable with going forward.

I'm a bit confused. I still feel that E is a stronger explanation because Tiya provides new information, that the defects will be revealed a few years later, to undermine the conclusion that there are no defects. Furthermore, I feel that saying that implying or suggesting the conclusion to be false is not the same as asserting that the conclusion is false. This answer choice could be rephrased to say that Tiya provides new information to undermine Sam's conclusion. I also don't understand the premise-to-conclusion impact described above entirely. It seems that a conclusion-to-premise impact makes more sense to me because if the defects are revealed, then this will undermine the conclusion that there actually are defects which will cause the customers to be unsatisfied. This makes more sense to me as opposed to the premise-to-conclusion shift that answer C describes. If customers find there are defects later and they are unsatisfied, their dissatisfaction will not lead to the conclusion that there are defects. Instead, it seems that the presence of defects will lead to customers being dissatisfied. I don't know if I'm assuming too much here or why the premise-to-conclusion shift is preferred more. Can someone clarify my logic and understanding of this?

[ohthatpatrick]

"I'm a bit confused. I still feel that E is a stronger explanation because Tiya provides new information, that the defects will be revealed a few years later, to undermine the conclusion that there are no defects. "

You're using stronger than appropriate language by saying "will be" revealed.

Tiya says "at least one manufacturing defect in an automobile was not apparent for the first few years".

That's WAY different from "Starlight automobiles WILL have defects in a few years".

Of course that's the POSSIBILITY that Tiya is suggesting, but it's just a possibility, not a definite.

You correctly said that Tiya is merely UNDERMINING Sam's conclusion, not REFUTING it.

(E) says that Tiya is REFUTING the conclusion. (C) says that Tia is UNDERMINING the argument.

You're using an everyday definition of "implies" to mean "hints at, suggests, indirectly gives us that impression".

Look up "imply" in a dictionary and you'll see the secondary meaning that LSAT, and other legal writers, use.

To "imply" is essentially to guarantee. An "implication" is a logical consequence of something.

A implies B = A --> B
A proves B
A guarantees B
A requires B
etc.

In terms of how Tiya's response undermines Sam's support....

Sam is trying to prove that Starlights don't have manufacturing defects.

What is Sam's support?

There's a survey that suggests that Starlight owners have not experienced a manufacturing defect in the first year of owning their new Starlight.

Okay, are you convinced? If you haven't experienced a defect in the first year of owning a new car, are you convinced that the car does NOT have any manufacturing defects?

Nope, because as Tiya reminds us, manufacturing defects don't necessarily appear during the first year.

Sam's support requires an assumption that the 1st year is all we need to worry about when it comes to manufacturing defects.

(C) shows us that this assumption is wrong, so now Sam's support seems inadequate to justify his conclusion.

I think you're hearing (C) too narrowly as "Tiya went against Sam's premise", but you wanna hear it more as "Tiya showed why Sam's evidence isn't good enough".

== other answers ===

(A) Tiya is not arguing that Sam is correct. If anything, Tiya is suggesting that Sam is wrong.

(B) Tiya isn’t attacking the truth of Sam’s survey. She is implicitly accepting the survey is true, but suggesting that the survey is an incomplete part of the picture, since the survey only deals with the first year of owning a Starlight.

(D) “presupposes the truth of the conclusion” = Circular argument = “the conclusion is a restatement of the premise”. If Sam’s argument were circular, it would sound like “Starlight cars are free from manufacturing defects. After all, Starlight cars are defect-free.”

Nothing in Tiya’s sentence sounds like she’s accusing Sam of saying anything like this.

[MensaNumber]

Thanks for such an amazing explanation OhThePatrick! Understanding the legal meaning of 'imply' was the 'Aha!' moment for me.

I also get confused by the word 'consideration'. In the answer choices three different words are used- evidence(b), consideration(c), new information(e). How to distinguish 'consideration' from 'evidence'? I was wondering if you could help me with this? Thank you.

[jonrgould1]

All hail Patrick!

[tommywallach]

YES! ALL HAIL!