#25 - Certain governments subsidize certain basic

[reop6780]

On the page of 266 in question type training, (#10)

I switched my answer from C to E, and the correct answer is C. The stimuli describes, as far as I understand, the quite opposite consequence of the policy that intended to guarantee adequate amount of domestic production.

Hence, I looked for an answer that has the opposite result of what certain policies intended.

Answer C describes a need for strong armed force to forestall armed conflict, but its result could be actual combat.

Answer E describes traffic laws intended for safer trip may lead to less sate trip.

My problem is that I cannot distinguish answer C and E based upon the reasoning I see in the stimuli.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

As you said, the stimulus describes a plan and a counterproductive outcome; in an effort to guarantee adequate production of certain products, some governments take an approach that actually leads to reduced production. Answer choice (C) does the same thing, as you correctly noted: although seeking to avoid conflict, the plan can actually lead to combat.

Answer choice (E) comes close; it describes a plan in which governments try to make travel safer, but their efforts can often be insufficient to deal with increasing volumes of traffic. The problem with this choice is that it is not the approach itself (the traffic laws) leading to a reduction in safety--it is an additional issue--increased traffic, which can keep an otherwise effective plan from achieving its desired outcome.

Good question! Some of these can be pretty subtle. Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[reop6780]

Ah ha! It makes sense now. Thank you, Steve!

[LaCrosse]

Hello PowerScore experts,

I am uncertain that the structure of the stimulus matches the structure of the correct answer choice (C).
Per the Logical Reasoning Bible Ch. 16, the following elements have to be paralleled in a Parallel Reasoning question: the Method of Reasoning, the Validity of the Argument, the Conclusion and the Premises.

The Stimulus:
Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural products in order to guarantee an adequate domestic production of them.
"In order to" introduces the sufficient condition, indicating there is conditional reasoning going on here:
adequate agricultural production --> subsidize

But subsidies encourage more intensive farming, which eventually leads to soil exhaustion and drastically reduced yields.
The second statement in the stimulus seems to employ a causal reasoning chain:
subsidize --> more farming --> soil exhaustion AND reduced yields
Or, slightly condensed: subsidize --> more farming --> ~adequate agricultural production


Now, let's take a look at the answer choice (C):
Certain governments build strong armed forces in order to forestall armed conflict.
"In order to" introduces the sufficient condition, indicating there is conditional reasoning going on here:
~conflict --> build strong army

But in order to maintain the sort of discipline and morale that keeps armed forces strong, those forces must be used in actual combat periodically.
"In order to" introduces the sufficient condition while "must" introduces the necessary condition:
build strong army --> conflict


Thus the stimulus can be diagrammed as:
adequate agricultural production --> subsidize (Conditional reasoning)
subsidize --> more farming --> ~adequate agricultural production (Causal reasoning)

And the answer choice (C) can be diagrammed as:
~conflict --> build strong army (Conditional reasoning)
build strong army --> conflict (Conditional reasoning)

Are my diagrams correct?
If so, it appears that the answer choice (C) fails to parallel the Method of Reasoning of the stimulus. Instead of having a conditional statement and a causal statement, answer choice (C) has two conditional statements in it.

When I tried to parallel the Premises, I've also noticed that the stimulus contains a chain of linked terms (A causes B, B causes C) that's absent from the answer choice (C) that only links two terms at a time. Is that something I need to be concerned about or should I just focus on evaluating the certainty level and the intent of the Premises?

Thank you,

Alex

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the question! This one is tricky, and is an important example of why you need to not overly rely on the indicators of sufficient and necessary conditions. Here, "in order to" really means "for the purpose of." It isn't indicating conditional reasoning, even though it can be tempting to see it that way.

When it comes to a question like this, it can be helpful to remember that you're looking for the best answer choice, not necessarily a perfect answer choice (here, the one that is "most nearly similar," not perfectly similar). Here, each of the elements is close enough, and there is no answer choice that is a better match.

Hope that helps!

[LaCrosse]

Hi Emily,

Thank you for your response!

I might have fallen into a trap of having conditioned myself (no pun intended) to scan every problem for the common words that can indicate a sufficient/necessary condition and then automatically assume that conditional reasoning is being tested if I find any. Would you happen to have any tips on how to best avoid making such a mistake? Is it a good idea to always double-check that I can apply the definitions of the sufficient and necessary conditions to the sentence I am reading?

I also wanted to make sure I understand the second paragraph in your answer correctly: in a Parallel Reasoning question, isn’t it always mandatory to parallel each of the four elements of the “Elemental Attack” (the Method of Reasoning, the Validity of the Argument, the Conclusion and the Premises)?
Thus even if there are four answer choices that are utterly poor matches for the stimulus, won’t the remaining answer (even if it’s an imperfect match) have to parallel these four elements as the bare minimum requirement for being correct?

Thank you,

Alex

[David Boyle]

Hi Emily,

Thank you for your response!

I might have fallen into a trap of having conditioned myself (no pun intended) to scan every problem for the common words that can indicate a sufficient/necessary condition and then automatically assume that conditional reasoning is being tested if I find any. Would you happen to have any tips on how to best avoid making such a mistake? Is it a good idea to always double-check that I can apply the definitions of the sufficient and necessary conditions to the sentence I am reading?

I also wanted to make sure I understand the second paragraph in your answer correctly: in a Parallel Reasoning question, isn’t it always mandatory to parallel each of the four elements of the “Elemental Attack” (the Method of Reasoning, the Validity of the Argument, the Conclusion and the Premises)?
Thus even if there are four answer choices that are utterly poor matches for the stimulus, won’t the remaining answer (even if it’s an imperfect match) have to parallel these four elements as the bare minimum requirement for being correct?

Thank you,

Alex

Hello Alex,

Double-checking is good. Common sense may come in handy too, not just diagramming.
As Emily was saying, there may not be a 100% parallel. It should be pretty close, though. But there may be acceptable ambiguities. For example, sometimes a particular chain of reasoning could, at least for convenience, be diagrammed as either causal or conditional. (Not even getting into the idea that causal is a subset of conditional!) "But subsidies encourage more intensive farming, which eventually leads to soil exhaustion and drastically reduced yields." seems causal, but could also be diagrammed, with at least a little accuracy, in a "conditional" fashion, "intensive farming exhaustion/bad yields." It may really be causal, but given time limitations on the real-life test, it may be o.k. temporarily to think of it as resembling a conditional, rather than taking 10 minutes to think about "Oh no! If it's causal, do I have to treat it totally differently from a conditional??" Then when you get home, maybe you can slice and dice all the logical permutations of things. Often, on the LSAT, it's better to "do the best you can", in the 35 minutes you have, rather than look for 110% clarity on everything.

Hope this helps,
David

[LaCrosse]

Thank you David, this does give me a better perspective on this question type. Parallel Reasoning is a weakness of mine so I am definitely trying to do all the “slicing and dicing” prior to the test to make sure I go into the real thing as ready as I can possibly be.

Regards,

Alex

[LEO731]

I struggled with this question and got it wrong twice on BR; so I'm taking it apart and just chiming in with how I think it's set up from the test maker's perspective. Key is the question stem:

"..situation..most nearly similar.. blah blah to which of the following *with respect to the relationship between the declared INTENT of a govt practice and a CIRCUMSTANCE RELEVANT TO IT {aka THAT INTENT]"

So the intent and it's relationship to something in or about it (that's hopefully relevant) figures into the (causal? wishful?) logic even if you diagram it.

The best I can make of the stimulus is this:

Intent: A-->B (subsidy --maintain--> adequate agricultural production)
Unintended byproduct: A intensifies C (more intensive farming aka agricultural production, a circumstance related to *all* of the intent A-->B)
Final Result: C --> ~B (opposite effect)

Answer choice (C) does something like this:

Intent: A --> B ( build strong AF --maintain--> peace)
Unintended byproduct: A maintains some sort of unintended relationship to the intent A-->B, call it "C"
Final Result: C --> ~B (opposite effect)

This allowed me to see (B) was definitely wrong and (E) just doesn't diagram the same way. Unfortunately, the word "periodically" is thrown in to lead you away from the most legit answer but the question stem does leave room for loose approximations by the qualifier "most nearly."

Logical mashed potatoes. Yuck.

[christinecwt]

Hi Powerscore expert - would you mind explaining why answer choice D is incorrect? Thanks!