#5 - The government has proposed a plan requiring young

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)

All we know from the two premises in the stimulus is that the government has a plan that will require service among young people, and such service should be compelled only in response to a direct threat to the nation's existence. From this information, the author jumps directly to the conclusion that the proposed program should therefore not be implemented. However, we cannot logically jump to such a conclusion without knowing whether or not a direct threat to the nation currently exists. The correct answer must sufficiently close that gap.

Answer Choice (A): While this may be another (albeit weak) argument against government required service, it does nothing to address the primary gap in the argument, which is whether or not a direct threat to the nation exists.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice may get us a little closer to where we need to go, as it narrows the options of what can constitute a direct threat, however we still have no information as to whether the society in this stimulus is under foreign attack.

Answer Choice (C): This would actually weaken the argument, as it informs us that two primary issues the program is designed to address do constitute a threat to the nation's existence.

Answer Choice (D): Whether or not the nation's young people believe that current social ills do not constitute a direct threat to the nation's existence is irrelevant to the question of whether or not such a threat exists.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This statement absolutely has to be true for the stimulus argument to stand. If all of the social issues that currently afflict the nation do pose a direct threat to the nation's existence, than the author's conclusion that the program should not be implemented does not follow.

[Winup12]

[Question removed by admin: June 1994, LR 1, Question 5]

My pre-phrase: the proposed program is not a direct threat to the nation's existence.

My thoughts:
Answer choice E is equivalent to: Some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation do pose a direct threat to the nation's existence (since some do not, others do; or else it would be "all ... do not" or "none...do"). And if some do pose a threat, E) does not fit the pre-phrase. Therefore I eliminated E, which is the correct answer.

Could anyone help explaining why E is the answer choice? B has its problem of being too limiting ("only in times") but it fits the pre-phrasing well. Thanks in advance!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for the question--the issue here is with the term "some" and the implications you mentioned. The word "some" actually just means "at least one" or "one or more." So, if I say "some people cannot fly," for example, that is a statement which means that there is at least one person who cannot fly. But it does not imply that there are others who can fly.

So, if the LSAT makers tell us that some ills are not threats, that's all we know--we cannot presume that other ills fall under a different category.

Let me know if this makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[josuecarolina]

Premise 1: government proposes a plan requiring young people to perform services to correct various current social ill especially in education and housing.
Premise 2: Government service, however, should be compelled only in response to a direct threat to the nations existence

Conclusion: The proposed program should not be implemented.

Okay, so I see that there needs to be a connection between being required to perform services to correct ills, and a direct threat to the nations existence (or lack thereof).

I chose Answer A, even though I wanted to choose Anser E (and answer E is correct). Why? Statement negation:

Answer E: Some of the social Ills that currently afflict the nation do not pose a direct threat to the nations existence. so Statement negation: none of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat to the nations existence. Which supports the conclusion, not attacking it (strengthens, not weakens)....so what am I missing here? What really messed me up here was the word Some. Logical opposite of some is none, right? so...help?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Your application of the Assumption Negation Technique is based on a mistaken interpretation of the logical opposite of answer choice (E). The logical opposite of "some are not" is "all," just like the opposite of "some" is "none." So, the logical opposite of that answer choice would be:

• All of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat to the nations existence.

This clearly weakens the conclusion, and is therefore correct.

Please let me know if that makes sense. Thanks!

[Nishbha]

When I was doing this problem I narrowed it down to answer choices D and E, and while I understand why D is wrong I do not understand why E is correct. When doing the assumption negation technique, would the logical opposite of the answer choice not be "some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation DO pose a direct threat..." Which does not necessarily make the argument invalid

[Steve Stein]

Hi Nishbha,

In that one, based on the premise that government service should only be compelled by a direct threat, the author concludes that the currently proposed plan should not be implemented:

Premise: Govt. service should only be compelled under direct threat.

Conclusion: The proposed program of correcting social ills should not be implemented.

The author clearly believes that the current program is not a response to direct threat. Applying the Assumption Negation Technique, the correct answer to this Assumption question, when negated, will hurt the author's argument above.

Answer choice E:
Some of the referenced social ills do not pose a direct threat.

The negated version of this answer choice would be as follows:
None of the referenced social ills do not pose a direct threat threat.

In other words, if none of those social ills fail to pose a threat, that means that they all pose a threat. This weakens the author's argument (considering its basis), confirming E as an assumption required by the author's conclusion.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Adam Tyson]

I might add to Steve's explanation by posing another way to negate answer choice E, and that would be "All of those social ills pose a direct threat." That's what Steve is saying in his last paragraph. That should destroy the author's conclusion, and thereby prove that E is the correct answer.

[FIDELIO]

Your application of the Assumption Negation Technique is based on a mistaken interpretation of the logical opposite of answer choice (E). The logical opposite of "some are not" is "all," just like the opposite of "some" is "none." So, the logical opposite of that answer choice would be:

• All of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat to the nations existence.

This clearly weakens the conclusion, and is therefore correct.

Please let me know if that makes sense. Thanks!

Hi. I chose D over E (final contenders). I guess looking back it's an anonymous person making this argument and not the young people's belief that we are concerned with.

I negated both D and E. D however seems to impact the core of the argument more than E. I read above where you negated the "SOME NOT". I did not see it this way.

I tried changing Some to None and that strengthened the core, then in E I tried negating by eliminating the word NOT. Doing this really made the answer choice UNCLEAR and had no bearing on the argument so I simply eliminated it.

Now from reading your previous post I see that in this instance you took two words and combined them together then took the LOGICAL opposite.

HOW DID YOU DO THAT?

Is there anything you can put before an answer choice in Necc Assumption questions THAT WILL ALWAYS wind up giving you the proper negation?

In the virtual POWERSCORE course I'm taking my instructor said something about how you could put "It's not the case that...". Which seems to sometimes work and other times leaves me scratching my head. Especially on these STUPID philosophical problems.

[mankariousc]

Hello!

I am confused about the Negation Assumption of answer choice E. I thought I read earlier in the homework that the logical opposite of "at least one" or "at least some" is "none." Could you please explain how you arrived at this negation?

Thanks so much!