#13 - Jenkins: Research on the properties of snow at the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point At Issue. The correct answer choice is (E)

This is a challenging question for most test takers. Jenkins argues that research on the properties of snow at the North Pole should be conducted during January and February, since researchers have the best chance of success during these months (and it is less likely that funding will not be wasted). Lurano disagrees, stating that research should be conducted in April or May when researches run less risk of suffering dangerous exposure to the cold. So the issue here seems to be one of finance (research funding) versus safety (exposure to the cold).

Answer choice (A): Both speakers would likely agree with this point, so it fails the Agree/Disagree Test.

Answer choice (B): Both speakers would likely disagree with this point, so it too fails the Agree/Disagree Test.

Answer choice (C): Neither speaker’s opinion on whether funding will be wasted if researchers are sent after February can be known. Jenkins simply states that the risk of wasting money increases, while Lurano does not make any absolute claims regarding funding.

Answer choice (D): Both speakers would agree with this answer choice, so it fails the Agree/Disagree Test.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Jenkins would say that funding does outweigh the risks to researchers (hence we should send them in January or February), while Lurano believes that safety is more important that the risk of wasted money (hence we should researchers when it is warmer).

[cecilia]

Hi Powerscore peeps -

This concerns question 13 from the second LR section from the Dec 2002 test - the Jenkin v. Lorano discussion. While I understand how E is the correct a.c., I would be hard pressed at arriving at that answer via the Agree/Disagree Test. Where is there evidence from Jenkins' statement that he agrees that funding "outweighs" the risks to the researchers? While Jenkins certainly believes that funding is important, woudln't it be several steps to infer that he believed it also "outweighed" other stuff, such as , in this case, the researchers lives?

I often find myself with these Id the disagreement q's as either being too-nitpickey and immediately ruling out answer choices when they seem to introduce stuff ( here, it was the idea of "outweigh") that was never discussed by one or both of the speakers.

Thanks as always, for your help!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi cecilla,

This one is tricky, because we are dealing with a normative argument, not a factual one. At issue is what should be done to resolve a dilemma, not what the dilemma actually is. Jenkins argues that research should be conducted when the researchers have the best chance of success, and funding is less likely to be wasted. Lurano disagrees, stating that research should be conducted later in the year, when researchers run less risk of suffering dangerous exposure to the cold. So, the issue seems to be one of competing priorities: according to Jenkins, the risk to research outweighs the risk to researchers. Lurano thinks otherwise.

That's why answer choice (E) is correct: while neither speaker explicitly compares the two types of risk, Jenkins clearly believes that funding does outweigh the risk to researchers (hence we should send them in January/February), while Lurano regards safety as the more important factor (hence, we should wait until it's warmer).

Does this make sense? Let me know.

Thanks!

[cecilia]

Thanks Nikki. It does make sense. I guess what I'm frustrated with is what the primary mindset should be going into this type of question. If I had approached it in a more "big-picture" way, perhaps I could have seen the clear differences in each speaker's priorities - one guy prioritizing the research and the other guy prioritizing lives. Instead, I took a very literal view and tried to stick close to the text. Often, when i get this type of question wrong, it's because I have made an assumption that went beyond what the speaker/speakers said...as in, I rationalized, well Speaker A probably would agree with that and Speaker B would probably disagree with that. Could you suggest a possible middle ground in approaching these questions? Perhaps the moral of the story is that I should just understand what each speaker says on its own and then figure out the area of disagreement, instead of obsessing over whether individual words/phrases/specific ideas are mentioned by both speakers??

Thank you!

[Nikki Siclunov]

I know exactly what you're saying. If you stick to a very literal interpretation of the Agree/Disagree test, it would be difficult to prove with 100% certainty that the two speakers would disagree with the issue at hand. As you said yourself, speaker A would probably agree, while speaker B would probably disagree. Neither position is stated in a manner that would allow us to determine an explicit source of agreement or disagreement. We crave certainty, but can't always have it. In this case, choose the answer choice most likely to represent a point at issue, something implied but never stated. Remember - your judgment should be based on a comparative analysis of all five answer choices. Even if you aren't 100% sold on (E), the rest of them suck even more.

The "big picture" is basically your gut instinct. The more you work with this test, the better it will get.

[AspiringLawyer]

To me, C and E are equal in being the "best" answer. On my first attempt of this question, I marked E as incorrect because of Form 3 of Incorrect Answers: The View of One Speaker is Unknown. All we can say regarding this a/c is that the most important consideration to Jenkins is that research money should not be wasted, while the most important consideration to Lurano is for the researchers to avoid "dangerous exposure to the cold." Yes, we can compare their priorities, but Jenkins does not explicitly have a "view" on researchers personal danger from exposure to the cold. On the other hand, Lurano does have a "view" on research money being wasted, albeit indirect. It is indirect because Jenkins makes the connection between snow melting and research money being wasted, to which Lurano directly responds "I disagree" because "the weather will likely still be cold in April and May."

In my opinion, C and E are the only contenders, but both feature Form 3 of Incorrect Answers: The View of One Speaker is Unknown. In other words, they are both problematic. Can you please re-phrase why E is a better answer than C?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Aspiring Lawyer,

I think you are saying that Jenkins, but not Lurano, expresses a view about the statement in answer choice (C). I would actually say that Jenkins expresses no opinion on whether funding will be wasted if research is done later than February. Jenkins expresses a concern about the risk of sending researchers too late. The word "will" is the best reason to eliminate answer choice (C).

I agree with your assessment of why (E) is not an ideal answer choice, but I do think my reasons against (C) are sufficient to eliminate it, and that would leave you with (E) as the best contender.

Good luck as your studying continues!

[lathlee]

I am just making it clear so in the case like this, NORMATIVE setting, The correct answer can only tell in a degree of probably, frequency of occurring answer type such as like this only a few occasions (less than 50%) or usually (51-90 %) or pretty much all the time (pretty much 100%), that the answer produces PROBABLY one view agrees/disagrees? or this occasion was a stastic outlier?

[Claire Horan]

Hi lathlee,

I don't think trying to put a percentage on it would be helpful. Prephrasing alone will get you the correct answer much of the time. If there are still two or more contenders after prephrasing the issue about which the two speakers disagree, compare them to see which one is more supported by the stimulus. That's it. Going into it more and trying to determine probabilities is overcomplicating the process.

Good luck!

[Legallyconfused]

Hi!

I just hate how answer E is written. "Outweigh"? What if Jenkins is just unaware that there could be dangerous circumstances for the researchers if they go in January/February? I can understand how Lurano would disagree with answer choice E because at least their reply was a rebuttal of what Jenkins said. Jenkins never had a chance to reply to Lurano and agree or disagree. I feel like the answer should say something more like:

" The primary consideration during this experiment should be that (research money is not wasted) or (researchers run less risk of suffering dangerous exposure to the cold)."

But even then, I don't know that Jenkins thinks it is the "primary consideration," or the most important consideration, only that it is "important." Maybe if Jenkins had literally said, "the primary consideration" or "it is the most important consideration," then I would understand the "outweigh" in answer E.

I get that they have different considerations when it comes to this research project. But I don't see how we can say Jenkins thinks his consideration outweighs Lurano's consideration.

Thanks in advance!