#15 - Marta: There have been complaints about the lack of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (D)

Alarmed at the prospect of continuing with inadequate recreational areas, Arthur is quick to conclude that that the proposal for walking trails not be dismissed without further consideration. Marta, however, merely pointed out that there may be more productive ways of using the land, not that the proposal be scrapped altogether. In fact, Marta seemed to agree with Arthur that there are complaints about the lack of recreational areas in the city.

Arthur’s response indicates that he misinterpreted Marta to be recommending that the proposal be dismissed. Answer choice (D) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Even though Marta suggested that there may be more productive ways of using that land, Arthur did not bring up the notion of productivity in countering Marta’s claim. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): While Marta may be favoring the development of recreational areas other than walking trails, neither speaker addresses the possibility of such development. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): While Arthur may have corrected Marta’s observation that the complaints about the lack of recreational areas is an actual fact and not a mere complaint, this was not the main point of his argument. Indeed, the validity of the complaints is not the issue in either position: what should be done to address them is (or appears to be – at least to Arthur). This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

Answer choice (E): The feasibility of implementing the proposal is not an issue for either speaker. This answer choice is incorrect.

[a.lsat]

Hello PowerScore

I have just finished my first timed PT after reading al three bibles and the workbook, yet met some problem. Can you kindly help me with them?

==LR Section 1==

#15:
I stuck with answer choice (B). This is how I view their conversation: Marta believes that the land could have even productive recreational use other and the walking trail, thus the proposal to change the railway land into walking trail should not be applied. On the other hand, Arthur misinterpreted that Marta would like to turn the land into other use, recreational or not-recreational, say factories. Arthur, thus, argued that the city has been lack of recreational areas, so the proposal of chaining the railroad into walk trial, which would still be a recreational area should be given further consideration. Answer choice (B) would then be the correct answer, since Marta never want to have the land changed into any non-recreational use but Arthur misread her opinion as "favouring the development of recreational areas other than walking trails." Since answer choice doesn't specify whether the "development of recreational area" is remain it as recreational area or not, that would be true that Arthur misinterpreted that Martha would like to change it as non-recreational use! Is there anything I missed?

[Adam Tyson]

It appears here that Arthur is mainly concerned with recreational areas - he says we don't have enough of those. He argues that we should consider the walking trail proposal.

Marta said there may be more productive uses for the railroad land than walking trails. Did she say what that might be? She didn't - she could favor another recreational use for it, or a non-recreational use. She could be in favor of more recreational facilities on some other land instead of on the railroad land. She could be in favor of nearly anything - we just don't know.

Arthur, however, seems to think he knows what Marta wants - his argument is based on the idea that Marta appears, to him, to be against creating more recreational areas. Where did he get that idea? I don't know - Marta didn't really tell us anything about what she is for or against. Our job is to figure out what Arthur must have been thinking about what Marta was thinking - that's a lot of mind-reading! Answer D is the best fit - he behaves as if Marta is totally opposed to the proposal.

Take another look at answer B, and ask yourself how Arthur would react if he thought that was true, that Marta wanted to develop other recreational areas. Wouldn't he be happy about that, rather than argumentative? Isn't it clear from his argument that he wants more recreational areas, not just the walking trails? If he thought Marta favored other recreational areas, he would probably say something like "that's great, let's look into that, we need more of those. Good to work with you, Marta!"

Because that isn't how Arthur responded, answer B isn't supported by the stimulus, and thus cannot be the right answer to this Must Be True question.

Take another look, putting yourself in Arthur's place, and see if that doesn't clear it up some. Good luck!

[a.lsat]

Hi Adam

Thanks for the explanation, yet I find it hard for me to be convinced with this one..

To me, since Arthur[A] begins his argument immediately with the walking trails, he seems to be more concerned with the "walking trails" instead of the "recreational area." Do you agree with that?

If we look at answer choice (B), and that A believes that Marta[M] is favouring the development of recreational areas other than the walking trails. It could means that M want the specific land to be used as other kind of recreational purpose, park or something else, which M believes more productive than the walking trails. (Suppose in M's opinion, a park for the citizens is more productive than a walking trial!) A would thus argue that M should give the walking trail proposal more consideration.

A then would not agree with M's idea, A just want the walking trail on the specific land.

--

M: favouring other kinds of recreational use on that land, since it's more productive in her opinion.
A: favouring a walking trail on the specific land and argue that the proposal for walking trial should be considered.

It just sounds quite reasonable to me. What do you think?

[Clay Cooper]

Hi a.lsat,

Thanks for your follow-up question. I understand your confusion - this is not an easy stimulus to untangle.

I think we would be well advised to limit our understanding of each speaker's arguments to what they actually say in their respective speeches.

Specifically, Marta asserts only three pieces of evidence: 1. There have been complaints; 2. Some people want to use the railway area as a walking trail; and 3. There may, though, be more productive uses. To be clear, Marta has not asserted an opinion; she has merely stated three pieces of evidence.

Arthur misinterprets her position, though, and concludes that she thinks the proposal to turn the railway area into walking trails should be dismissed. We know this because he asserts two, and only two, things: 1. The problem has gone on too long; and 2. The walking trail plan should not be dismissed without further consideration.

This reply, however, misses Marta's point. She did not suggest dismissing this plan, or dismissing any other plan - in fact, she didn't suggest anything at all should be done. All she did was make observations of two facts and one possibility.

That Arthur counters her observations with a specific suggestion that we not abandon this plan without considering it further, and in particular the phrasing he used to do so, strongly indicates that he has put words into Marta's mouth, so to speak, and thinks that Marta wants to write off the walking trail proposal.

Thus, answer choice D is the best one - Arthur thinks Marta wants to dismiss this plan, but she hasn't said so.

Does that make more sense?