#21 - Joel: A myth is a narrative told to convey a

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thanks!

[LSATer]

Hello,

What does it mean to advance an analogous position (as stated in answer choice B)? I've looked at this question several times and I am always torn between B and E.

Thanks
LSATer

[AthenaDalton]

Hi LSATer,

Advancing an analogous position would be making an argument that uses similar reasoning as Joel's or reaches a similar conclusion.

That's not what Gisele is doing here -- she gives a counter example that undermines Joel's argument. Gisele's counterexample does happen to be in the form of an analogy, which is what makes answer choice (B) so attractive to many students.

Answer choice (E) is a better fit, since is correctly identifies Gisele's method of argument as offering a counterexample and mentions the difference in how Joel and Gisele understand the word "myth." The difference in the definition of the word "myth" is at the heart of Joel and Gisele's dispute, which (E) accurately encapsulates.

This is a very difficult problem -- thanks for raising your question!

[bk1111]

Hi LSATer,

Advancing an analogous position would be making an argument that uses similar reasoning as Joel's or reaches a similar conclusion.

That's not what Gisele is doing here -- she gives a counter example that undermines Joel's argument. Gisele's counterexample does happen to be in the form of an analogy, which is what makes answer choice (B) so attractive to many students.

Answer choice (E) is a better fit, since is correctly identifies Gisele's method of argument as offering a counterexample and mentions the difference in how Joel and Gisele understand the word "myth." The difference in the definition of the word "myth" is at the heart of Joel and Gisele's dispute, which (E) accurately encapsulates.

This is a very difficult problem -- thanks for raising your question!

Hi, I have a question regarding B. IF an "analogous position" would use similar reasoning as Joel's, it is even possible to "point out a weakness" by "advancing an analogous position" as stated in B? In this case, would an "analogous position" also emphasize that myths are no longer told in today? I guess I just do not fully understand how to eliminate B confidently

[Shannon Parker]

Hi LSATer,

Advancing an analogous position would be making an argument that uses similar reasoning as Joel's or reaches a similar conclusion.

That's not what Gisele is doing here -- she gives a counter example that undermines Joel's argument. Gisele's counterexample does happen to be in the form of an analogy, which is what makes answer choice (B) so attractive to many students.

Answer choice (E) is a better fit, since is correctly identifies Gisele's method of argument as offering a counterexample and mentions the difference in how Joel and Gisele understand the word "myth." The difference in the definition of the word "myth" is at the heart of Joel and Gisele's dispute, which (E) accurately encapsulates.

This is a very difficult problem -- thanks for raising your question!

Hi, I have a question regarding B. IF an "analogous position" would use similar reasoning as Joel's, it is even possible to "point out a weakness" by "advancing an analogous position" as stated in B? In this case, would an "analogous position" also emphasize that myths are no longer told in today? I guess I just do not fully understand how to eliminate B confidently

As noted B is a tricky answer choice because Giselle's argument does contain a partial analogy. The trick is that it is not a complete analogy because, as answer choice E indicates, it does not follow Joel's definition of a myth. Giselle clearly states that her example is not a narrative, which Joel stated is part of the definition of a myth. If Giselle had met all of the criteria in her analogy, yet came to a different conclusion, B could have been the correct answer.

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

Can you please explain why A is wrong? Also, I've been having a hard time with these type of questions. Any advice/tips for MoR question types? I'm using the Logic Game Trainer and have gotten almost every question wrong because I'm so confused! (Even after reading LR Bible too!)


Thanks!

[Zach Foreman]

Andriana,
Generally, you want to double check your answers by tying specific parts of the argument to the abstract parts of the answer choices.
A says that it offers a scientific explanation to a problem of literary theory. Joel doesn't seem to be posing a "problem" but giving an explanation. And Giselle is not explaining the problem posed but refuting the definition. Plus her refutation is not scientific just because she uses an example from medical science.

We also want to prephrase. At it's core, Giselle is offering contradictory evidence. She is pointing out that Joel's definition an and argument is incomplete at least or even wrong. With that prephrase, we can pick out B and E quickly just by looking at the first few words "points out a weakness" and "offers a counterexample that calls into question".

Athena gives an excellent analysis of why ac B doesn't work.

[heartofsunshine]

Hi,

I originally eliminated E. I read "calls into question part of the Joel's definition of myth"...thinking she doesn't call this into question, but I see that Giselle says this does not fit "narrative" which is part of Joel's definition.

However, I am still confused on eliminating C. I took this to mean that Joel's distinction was that traditional societies had myths and therefore wisdom to share through these myths and that modern societies do not have wisdom and therefore do not have myths to share. And since Giselle points out that modern societies do indeed have myths (even if they don't fit the full definition of Joels) that Joel therefore is basing his argument on an unsupported distinction.

I eliminated B, but I want to be sure I am understanding it correctly. I took this to mean that if Giselle had pointed out a weakness by advancing an analogous position, that would mean that Gisele would arrive at a similar conclusion (or position) and since Giselle is disagreeing with Joel, this would be incorrect. Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

With regard to answer C, heartofsunshine, you're correct up to a point. Yes, Joel draws a distinction between the modern world and traditional societies, but the question isn't asking what Joel did. It's asking what Giselle did! And she did not base her argument on a distinction, whether supported or unsupported. Instead, she based her argument on a counterexample.

As to answer B, that answer can be correct IF the argument goes something like this: "But by that reasoning, we could say that X is true based on Y, and that is clearly false." To argue by advancing an analogous position would be to make an argument that is very similar to the one made by the opposing party, but which has an obvious flaw, thereby highlighting the flaw in the opponent's argument.

B is a weird answer, to be sure, but we can eliminate it because Giselle doesn't make an argument that is analogous to Joel's argument.