Q9 - Writer: I collaborated with another

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Last time this writer wrote a book, it sold quite well because she worked in collaboration with another writer. Therefore she should collaborate with another writer on her next book so it will sell well.

One interesting way of looking at this one is to notice how conditional logic, causation, and comparison all move together in a rare show of unison. The argument definitely possesses a causal structure (collaboration caused her last book to sell well). It also contains a bit of comparison, comparing the success of her last book with that of her next book.

But on Principle questions, it's conditional logic that generally rules the day. And this one is no exception. Since we want to support the argument with a principle, we want to connect the evidence with the conclusion, which answer choice (C) does quite nicely.

Incorrect Answers
(A) might be tempting at first glance and is one that I'd likely hold onto until a second round of eliminating answers (just in case there is nothing better), but it stipulates working with the same collaborator, while the argument does not.
(B) reverses the logic.
(D) fails to connect the evidence.
(E) fails to connect the evidence.

#officialexplanation

[weiyichen1986]

Hi, here is another principle questions i have...

I chose B, it is wrong because of Sell well---->Collaboration?

For c, i was confused by future collaboration on the part f that person...but the stimulus did not mention anything about which part they should collaborate???

Did i miss anything here? Thanks.

[timmydoeslsat]

Hi, here is another principle questions i have...

I chose B, it is wrong because of Sell well---->Collaboration?

For c, i was confused by future collaboration on the part f that person...but the stimulus did not mention anything about which part they should collaborate???

Did i miss anything here? Thanks.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "but the stimulus did not mention anything about which part they should collaborate."

The stimulus is from a writer. We are given a question stem of principle support.

We are looking for a principle to help justify the argument the writer makes.

The writer says that he collaborated with another writer in his last book. And the book sold well due to the collaboration. Therefore, he should collaborate on his next book so that it will sell well too.

Answer choice (B) is reversed logic.

We want a principle that will give us this idea of having collaboration selling well on a previous work will ensure that collaboration will sell well again on works in the future.

This is not leading us to the idea of books selling well. It helps us with the idea that writing alone will not give you books selling well. But that is not the conclusion we are supporting. We want that collaboration selling well will lead to that again in the future.

(C) If a person's book sells well because of a collaboration (the information in the stimulus allows us to say that we have met this condition), future collaborations on the part of that person will produce other books that sell well.

This is a great answer choice. It gives us a conditional statement in which the sufficient condition was already met in the answer choice and leads us to the conclusion that future books will sell well.

A) The issue is the use of the same writer. This is sidetracking away from our conclusion about future collaborated books selling well.

D) Just because writers that ~collaborate have a smaller chance of writing a book that sells well does NOT mean that those that collaborate will sell well too.

E) If they are good writers is the issue with this answer choice. Plus, this will not lead us to should collaborate on the next book to sell well, it states usually, AND it also does not tell me what type of books are selling well. This could still be books written alone.

[ahn2014]

I don't see any difference between (A) and (C).

Both of them state 'collaboration' as sufficient condition and as a result, both of them say 'next book will sell well.'

Can anybody help me?

[logicfiend]

Hi ahn2014, the difference between A and C is that A says "if he or she collaborates with the same writer."

We don't see this restriction in the stimulus, which only says "a writer." We're trying to find an answer choice to support the argument's reasoning. A puts another perquisite on it that doesn't help to justify the conclusion. If A were right, we would need to see "the same writer" necessary condition in the stimulus, which we don't.

[kjsmit02]

I chose C, but still couldn't understand why b was wrong. While C was more appropriate contextually, B justified his above reasoning the same. If book sells well only bc of collab, then he's just as just as justified in collaborating, right?

[uhdang]

I can understand why other answer choices are wrong, but a bit unclear on C).

What does it exactly mean by "on the part of that person"? Originally I thought this "that person" meant the same writer just like it is referred in A), and I was confused without any answers..

"future collaborations on the part of that person will produce other books that sell well." is the problematic sentence I am struggling in specific. It feel like this sentence is referring to specifically the "acquired portion from collaboration" that will produce books that sell well, but I'm not sure...

[rinagoldfield]

The language is pretty twisted here. I can see why (C) is confusing. We can translate “on the part of that person” as a complicated possessive noun. I’d rephrase (C) as “If a person’s book sells well because of a collaboration, that person’s future collaborations will produce other books that sell well.” Both "person"s are the same writer.

[uhdang]

That clears it up!
Thanks, Rina!

[smsotolongo]

Got this one right. It came down to A and C. I went with C because A says "with the same writer", but the stimulus says "collaborate with a writer." There's no need for it to be with the same author as before. Am I right on that?

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Principle:

A causes B

------------------

I should do A so that B


(A) "collaborating the same write" narrows the scope principle cited in the stimulus. The stimulus said collaborating with a writer, not necessarily the same one.
(B) The principle never states that collaborating was necessary for the book to sell, only that the two are causally related
(C) Bingo
(D) We don't care about those do not collaborate
(E) The stimulus says nothing about good writers.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work roflcoptersoisoi, but aren't you just eager to rip into this argument? As I read through it just now, in my head I'm screaming Temporal Flaw!! Just because it worked last time, does that mean it's going to work this time?

Since there isn't an official explanation to this question, I'll put one below.