#19 - If the flowers Drew received today had been sent by

[alee]

Hi guys!

This questions relates to the June 2000 LSAT, Section II, Q19. I mentally sketched the question stem as follows:

Sent by someone who knows Drew well = KDW
V= violets
Signed card= SC

KDW -> V
Not V
Not KDW -> SC
Not SC
Either KDW or not KDW. Therefore either V or SC.
Neither V or SC. Therefore 'the florist must have made some sort of mistake'.

The question asks what most weakens the argument. I ruled out C on the basis that it is an opposite answer, I rule out E because it does not support or weaken the conclusion. However I am unable to distinguish further between A, B and D further. All of them seem to weaken the argument, and I cannot determine a factor which means that one of them weakens 'more' than the others....

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks

Alex

[Steve Stein]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your question. There is one subtle aspect of this stimulus' conditional language that is easy to miss: the author doesn't provide that someone who knew Drew well would send Drew violets. Rather, the author simply tells us that someone who knew Drew well would have been aware of Drew's preference for violets.

The author concludes that the flowers must have been some sort of mistake, but answer choice B hurts the author by providing another explanation:

If some people send flowers based on considerations other than pleasing the recipient, then maybe someone sent the violets for some reason other than pleasing Drew. If that is the case, it is possible that someone who knew Drew well might have sent him violets, despite being aware of the fact that Drew would have prefered roses.

That's a tough one--let me know whether it makes sense.

Thanks!

~Steve

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey Alex,

This is a tricky question. Here's how I'd break down the argument:

P1: Sender knows Drew --> Sender knows Drew prefers V > R

P2: Sender does NOT know Drew --> Send a card

P3: Drew received roses and NO card.

Conclusion: There was a mistake with the order.

Read the premises carefully. By the contrapositive of P2, we can conclude with certainty that the sender does know Drew. If she knows him, she would also know that he prefers violets to roses. Just because she sent him roses, however, does not mean that she didn't know him, i.e. Drew receiving roses does NOT trigger the contrapositive of P1. You mistakenly thought that it does. The sender might have known that Drew likes violets more, but sent him roses for reasons "other than the desire to please" - maybe they had a fight and sending roses was her moment of revenge Who knows? Bottom line is, the author is assuming that the sender would always do what she knows would please the receiver. This is an unwarranted assumption, and if answer choice (B) is true, you can see why.

(A) does not weaken the argument because "most" simply means "more than half." It is entirely possible that most people do not know the recipients of their flowers, while the sender in this case did know Drew - so she wouldn't fall into the category of "most people."

(D) does not weaken the argument either, because past performance does not indicate future results - this is a flaw in the reasoning. Also, maybe Drew didn't get the wrong flowers this time either: the author leaves open the possibility that Drew was supposed to get a card instead.

Let me know if this helps!

[Nikki Siclunov]

I guess Steve and I both answered your question at the same time. Not a biggie - you're simply getting two perspectives on how to approach this problem

[sarae]

Please explain why answer choice B is correct. I don't really see the connection between "the desire to please" and the stimulus.

Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Please explain why answer choice B is correct. I don't really see the connection between "the desire to please" and the stimulus.

Thanks!

Hello sarae,

"Desire to please" may relate to the idea that "Drew prefers violets to roses". But maybe the flower-sender is a crazy person who wants to bug Drew by sending roses, not violets.

Hope that helps,
David

[Jerrymakehabit]

Can someone please help me with choice E?

We need to weaken the conclusion that florist must have made some mistakes.

B weakens it by saying it is logically right that someone actually knows Drew well send him roses without a card so that florist did not make a mistake.

E adds another condition that someone knows Drew well sent him card. Combining this condition with the one in premises that someone does not know Drew well send him card, we can not infer if the sender knows him well or not when no card received. From the other premise someone who knows Drew well knows Drew prefer violets to roses, we can not infer if the sender knows him well or not when roses received. The analysis so far seems weakens the conclusion that florist must have made a mistake. So why E can not weaken?

Thanks
Jerry

[Adam Tyson]

First things first here, Jerrymakehabit - the claim that SOME people who know Drew well have sent him cards with flowers is not a conditional claim. Conditional claims are absolute, meaning the sufficient condition always requires the necessary condition. A true conditional claim here would be that ALL people who know Drew well ALWAYS send a card when they send flowers.

Answer E does nothing to harm the claim in the argument that the florist must have made a mistake. He got roses rather than violets, and he did not get a card. The author assumes that someone who knows him well would have sent violets rather than roses (based on Drew's preference for violets), and someone who did not would have sent a card. The author thinks a mistake by the florist is the only possible explanation for this odd circumstance. Either he was supposed to get violets, or he should have gotten a card, or he should not have gotten these flowers at all. Answer E provides no alternate explanation for the situation and does nothing to make sense of it. The florist continues to look bad here. What's the alternative that E raises? Did someone intentionally send roses to Drew with no card, or did the florist screw up somehow? If the florist didn't make a mistake, what happened? E doesn't answer the question.

Answer B gives us an alternate explanation, one that gets the florist off the hook. Maybe someone who knows Drew well sent the roses despite his preference for violets, because they weren't trying to please him with his preferred flowers. Perhaps the roses convey a specific message, or are more appropriate for a certain occasion, and the sender wasn't simply trying to make Drew happy by giving him his preferred choice. Perhaps this person was even trying to make Drew angry by giving him flowers he doesn't want. Basically, if B is true, the sender could very well know Drew well and have sent the roses with no card intentionally, and the florist made no mistake. That weakens the claim that the florist is to blame by raising the possibility that the sender is the culprit, for better or for worse.

[Naminyar]

Hey Alex,

This is a tricky question. Here's how I'd break down the argument:

P1: Sender knows Drew --> Sender knows Drew prefers V > R

P2: Sender does NOT know Drew --> Send a card

P3: Drew received roses and NO card.

Conclusion: There was a mistake with the order.

Read the premises carefully. By the contrapositive of P2, we can conclude with certainty that the sender does know Drew. If she knows him, she would also know that he prefers violets to roses. Just because she sent him roses, however, does not mean that she didn't know him, i.e. Drew receiving roses does NOT trigger the contrapositive of P1. You mistakenly thought that it does. The sender might have known that Drew likes violets more, but sent him roses for reasons "other than the desire to please" - maybe they had a fight and sending roses was her moment of revenge Who knows? Bottom line is, the author is assuming that the sender would always do what she knows would please the receiver. This is an unwarranted assumption, and if answer choice (B) is true, you can see why.

(A) does not weaken the argument because "most" simply means "more than half." It is entirely possible that most people do not know the recipients of their flowers, while the sender in this case did know Drew - so she wouldn't fall into the category of "most people."

(D) does not weaken the argument either, because past performance does not indicate future results - this is a flaw in the reasoning. Also, maybe Drew didn't get the wrong flowers this time either: the author leaves open the possibility that Drew was supposed to get a card instead.

Let me know if this helps!

Hello Nikki,

Would you please elaborate some more on answer choice A?
How can we say that the sender knew Drew?

[Adam Tyson]

I can help, Naminyar! In his explanation for answer A, Nikki isn't saying that the sender DID know Drew. He's saying that it's POSSIBLE that the sender knew Drew, and thus knew his preference. Most people sending roses does nothing to show that the florist may not have made a mistake. Even if most people send roses, whoever sent these might have wanted to send violets (knowing that Drew preferred them), and the florist made a mistake. The argument is still standing strong here, not because the sender DID know Drew but because they might know him.