#21- Tina: For centuries oceans and human eccentricity have

[jared.xu]

I am wondering why Powerscore's Agreement Test does not seem to work here. I eliminated the correct answer because I feel that one speaker would disagree, and that we do not know the opinion of the other speaker. E, the correct answer, states: "the linkage between oceans and eccentricity predates the European Renaissance." Tina would, of course, disagree since she argues that the European Renaissance practice caused the linkage. We would not know whether Sergio would agree or disagree. He does state that oceans have always been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable, but we don't know when he thinks the linkage between oceans and eccentricity first began. Please help. Thank you.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey jared.xu,

Thanks for your question.

The reason why (E) passes the Agree/Disagree test is the language which Sergio chooses to express his position: oceans have always been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable - qualities that have invariably been associated with eccentricity. For him, the linkage between oceans and eccentricity is atemporal, perhaps even absolute: he would certainly agree that it predates the European Renaissance (or any other specified point in time). Since Tina would disagree with (E) - she believes the linkage is due to the Renaissance practice of using ships as asylums - answer choice (E) is correct.

Hope this helps!

[LSAT2018]

I was debating between answer (C) and (E). Don't these two answers refer to the same thing, that there is a causal relationship between the European Renaissance and the Linkage of Oceans/Eccentricity?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi LSAT2018,
Tina's argument (having asylums on ships during the Renaissance led to people associating the ocean with eccentricity) and answer choice C link the ocean's eccentricity with the asylums on ships. But Sergio's argument is that the view of the ocean being eccentric predates the Renaissance (and thus predates the use of asylums on ships).
Hope that helps,
Malila

[ataraxia10]

I chose B. Here's my renewed understanding:

I now believe E is superior because Tina only mentions HOW the linkage CAME ABOUT as opposed to when and how long this linkage to oceans has been in existence. So the point of disagreement isn't HOW LONG the oceans' been viewed as such (since we do not know Tina's opinion on this), which is what choice B describes, but the root of this linkage which is described by choice E.

Is this reasoning valid?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi ataraxia10,
Your reasoning is perfect! Great job!
-Malila

[sunshine123]

Hello,

It's my understanding that Tina does not address the ocean as mysterious and unpredictable so we can't really say what she thinks about that. While reading the stimulus, I was tempted to equivocate between terms and assume that what one called eccentricity the other called mysterious and unpredictable - such equivocation, after all, is often made in one-speaker stimuli and must be assumed if one is to understand the argument at hand. Why are we not allowed to do so on this problem? Is it because it's a dual speaker stimuli?

Best,
Sunshine

[katehos]

Hi Sunshine!

Instead of focusing on Tina, perhaps try to focus on Sergio. We already know that Tina is discussing the time at which oceans were linked to human eccentricity, and while Sergio does mention that oceans have always been viewed as "mysterious and unpredictable" (something Tina does not explicitly say), Sergio says that these traits ARE associated with eccentricity specifically. This tells us explicitly that they are talking about the same idea: eccentricity, so it doesn't matter much if Tina agrees that mysterious and unpredictable are associated with eccentricity.

If you break down their arguments you can see that

Tina believes:
Oceans and eccentricity are linked
The link is due to the European Renaissance

Sergio believes:
Oceans and eccentricity are linked
The link has always existed

Thus, they disagree about whether or not the linkage predates the European Renaissance. Sergio would say "yes" the linkage does predate the European Renaissance (it has "always" existed); Tina would say "no" the linkage started with the European Renaissance, so it cannot predate it.

I hope this helps
Kate

[pineapplelover18]

Hi PS,

I want to try to explain my reasoning to see if im on the right track here. So I got this question right but was stuck between b and E (and eventually went with E) but from my understanding, Tina says: X and Y have been thought of as linked in many instances, this is probs because of Z. Sergio goes: No (not because of Z), it is because X and Y merely share these same qualities.

E can be well supported, Tina thinks this linkage occurred bc of the existence of the (Z) Euro Ren, Sergio states well actually no not bc of (Z), it was bc we have always thought of oceans in this way, and we also think of ecentricity as alike (and if not bc of (Z), then we can reasonably assume Sergio may support that it existed BEFORE this, also he mentions characteristics of X that had been "always viewed as" meaning long before the Euro Ren).

B is wrong bc we know Sergio agrees because he said it, but Tina may also agree. She could say that Oceans have always been viewed as this, BUT maybe it was the ecentricity that was not thought of in this way, and therefore when they DID start thinking this way, it was bc of the Euro ren. In sum, all we know is she MIGHT agree so that therefore cancels it out.

is this on the right track?

[Dana D]

Hey Pineapplelover,

You're right - Tina doesn't address oceans directly at all, so we can't say that she would disagree.

Good job!