#21 - Some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture a

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there egarcia and tejinder12, let me give it a shot and see if it makes sense to you both.

"it would if true have consequences that are false" means if the claim was true (that if it was effective, everyone would be using it), it would have consequences (everyone using it) that are false (NOT everyone is using it). Put another way, the author attempts to show that the claim requires something to be true that isn't actually true. It's describing a necessary condition not occurring, triggering a contrapositive.

Another example might be something like this:

If you had gotten a perfect score on your exam, the professor would have given you an A, but you didn't get an A so you must not have gotten a perfect score.

If it was true that you got a perfect score, then something else would have to be true (you'd get an A) that is, in fact, false (you didn't get an A).

The wording is a bit messy, but that's what it's all about - pointing out that reality doesn't conform to the requirements of your claim. Your necessary condition didn't actually happen.

I hope that helps!

[jmramon]

I get what you are saying, Adam. However, I think Yaesul is correct on this one. Adam’s hypothetical holds in his own scenario, but this isn’t how answer A is stated.

The stimulus says if A (the remedy is effective, as claimed), then B (everyone with a cold would use it). Therefore, if answer A is describing the necessary condition not being met (everyone with a cold isn’t using the remedy), then answer A should describe: ~B ~A. However, the answer does not say this, it says: A ~B. Answer A appears to be neither a mistaken reversal or a mistaken negation, but a complete mess up on describing the conditional relationship the author employs in the stimulus to make their argument. I think this is why everyone is confused, not because any other answer is correct, but because answer A goes against everything we’ve been taught about conditionals.

[James Finch]

Hi JM,

I think you are misreading (A). This answer choice is tricky because the lack of punctuation makes it more difficult to decipher, so let me know if it makes more sense restated a little:

"[A cold sufferer] finds a claim to be false because, if the claim were true, its logical conclusion would be something that is, in fact, demonstrably false."

This corresponds to evaluating the claim by using the contrapositive of that claim, because the necessary condition of the original claim is actually false, ie:

A B

but we know B, therefore:

B A

Let me know if that clears things up.

[jmramon]

Thank you very much, James! This really helped me a lot. I almost gave up trying to understand the answer’s merit due to the wording (which is probably the objective of those sneaky LSAT writers!).

[LSAT2018]

To clarify, the author suggests that the hypothesis on the effectiveness of the herbal mixture is false by virtue of showing that it would, if true, require false consequences, that the herbal mixture is not effective, and this would go against what some people would say (as referred to in the stimulus, 'some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold')

I always seem to have trouble answering Method of Reasoning/Flaw in the Reasoning questions that have stimulus' of very average difficulty but very difficult paraphrases such as this one. Is there any way I could improve on this (or if there any questions that I should practice specifically to improve)?

[Shannon Parker]

To clarify, the author suggests that the hypothesis on the effectiveness of the herbal mixture is false by virtue of showing that it would, if true, require false consequences, that the herbal mixture is not effective, and this would go against what some people would say (as referred to in the stimulus, 'some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold')

I always seem to have trouble answering Method of Reasoning/Flaw in the Reasoning questions that have stimulus' of very average difficulty but very difficult paraphrases such as this one. Is there any way I could improve on this (or if there any questions that I should practice specifically to improve)?

Hi LSAT2018,

The claim being found false is that the mixture is an effective cold remedy. The cold sufferer argues that if the claim were true, it would have the consequence that almost everyone with a cold would be using it. Since this is false (there are many people who have colds but do not use the mixture), the cold sufferer finds the claim to be false.

Hope this clears it up.
Shannon

[LSAT2018]

Wouldn't this question be a Flaw in the Reasoning? How is it valid/invalid? Its taking a hypothetical that almost everybody with a cold would be using the remedy. But how would this be a valid premise?

[Adam Tyson]

This is a method of reasoning question, not a flaw in the reasoning question, because we were not asked to describe what mistake was made but only to describe how the author made their argument. You're right that the argument is flawed, but our goal is still to describe the structure of the argument, the method that the author used to make his point, rather than to demonstrate why that method is wrong. The arguments in many method of reasoning questions are indeed flawed, but we still have to describe how the author made their case, good or bad. Be sure to pay close attention to the question stem so you can accomplish the task you were assigned and don't get distracted by anything else!

[lanereuden]

What are false consequences generally speaking? Does this idea bear any relation to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

?


I have never seen anything like this before and don’t anticipate to see something like this again...in any event, I am wondering if this question suggests that this argument is invalid/unsound/flawed?

[James Finch]

Hi Lane,

It looks like you're getting a bit far afield. This is a Method question, so we're only looking to describe what the stimulus does. Here, it gives us a conditional premise and then uses the contrapositive of it to show that the original sufficient condition ("effective") is false. It breaks down to:

Premise: Effective Everybody Uses It

Contrapositive: Everybody Uses It Effective

Premise: Everybody Uses It

Conclusion: Effective

Hope this helps!