#15 - The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they

[student987]

If answer (A) had, instead of "black," the word "tall" (something relative), it would have been correct, right? That is, the only difference between (A) and (C) is the relativity in (C) and not (A), is that correct? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, student987! That's what I was talking about in my first post in this thread, the relative vs absolute nature of "tall" vs "black." Good work!

[student987]

Perfect, thank you so much!

[Jude.m.stone@gmail.com]

Hello! I get why C is right, and my gut told me that D was wrong despite being similar but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on why exactly D is wrong since it mirrors the exact same structure as C with only extremely minor differences. Is it because D doesn't repeat the noun in the conclusion (i.e. "all plants were tall plants" versus "all fruit was ripe" and not "all fruit was ripe fruit"), or is it because the authors don't consider ripeness to be a relative adjective? To me, ripeness is sort of relative in the way that height or size is, but I can see how that might not be the standard analysis of it. Thanks for your help!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Jude,

This is a case where the "only extremely minor differences" actually make all the difference in the world, so to speak.

On the LSAT, a difference of one or two words can be critical, as happens here.

Answer D is actually a valid argument and therefore definitely doesn't contain the flaw in the stimulus.

Answer D describes a valid conditional argument.

"The only fruit in the kitchen was pears" can be diagrammed

FK -> P

"the pears were not ripe" can be diagrammed

P -> not R

"thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe" can be diagrammed

FK -> not R

This is a valid conditional argument. Importantly, the term "unripe" here is the same in the conclusion as it is in the premise. In other words, it doesn't matter how we define "unripe" relative to other fruit.

The premises tell us that the pears were unripe and they were the only fruit in the kitchen, so it logically follows that all of the fruit in the kitchen were unripe (which is just another way of saying that none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe).

The argument in the stimulus changes terms from "tall tulips" in the premises to "tall plants" in the conclusion. And this seemingly small change actually makes the argument invalid because "tall tulips" are not necessarily "tall plants" in the same way that "jumbo shrimp" aren't necessarily "large crustaceans."

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

Here's my reasoning behind the answers (please let me know if there is a better/more efficient way to understand this):

The formulaic pattern of reasoning appears to be: premise introduced + second premise introduced= Conclusion [ repeats the subject noun of the first premise (only plants in the garden) & adds to it the adjective which modifies the subject noun of the second premise (the "tall in "tall tulips" from the second premise]

A: The conclusion and the premise don't deal with any relativity. Simply the color black

B: Doesn't follow formulaic pattern of reasoning outlined above

C: Perfectly follows the pattern of reasoning outlined above...Hence this is the credited response.

D: The conclusion and the premise don't deal with any relativity. Simply ripe vs unripe fruit

E: Doesn't follow formulaic pattern of reasoning outlined above

[Dana D]

Hey Asku,

As long as you recognize that the actual order of premise + premise = conclusion doesn't have to match, but rather the author's reasoning of reaching the conclusion based on two premises matches, this approach should be fine, but I would be cautious about using such a formulaic approach regarding the sentence structure. Answer choice (C), if the sentence order was changed, would still be the correct answer. We're looking to mimic the flaw in the stimulus here, so practice articulating exactly what the flaw in the stimulus is and the flaw in each answer choice is - if those flaws do not match, that is not the right answer choice.

Hope that helps!