#25 - Jordan: If a business invests the money necessary to

[SherryZ]

HI there, thank you for your generous help!

June 2001 LSAT, Sec 3 LR, #25:

Could you explain why A is the correct answer? I chose E and I don't understand why E is wrong?

In addition, could you explain A "it won't rain and the garden will go YET another day without much-needed watering" means? Does it mean the garden will need more water or not?

Thank you very much!

---Sherry

[Jacques Lamothe]

Hi Sherry,

The sentence "it won't rain and the garden will go YET another day without much-needed watering" indicates that the garden needs water and that delaying the water is probably a bad thing.

In the stimulus exchange, Jordan identifies a dilema in which either of two possible actions produces a bad result. Terry responds by pointing out that, under a certain condition, taking one of the actions that Jordan mentions would not have a negative effect.

Answer choice (A) matches this reasoning well. Jordan identifies a dilemma in which rainfall prevents the two from having a picnic and lack of rain hurts plants in the garden. Terry responds by pointing out that, under the condition that the two of them buy a hose, the lack of rain will not be a problem because they can water the plants themselves.

Answer choice (E) is slightly different. Jordan still identifies a dilemma in which either course of action (opening the spillway or not) leads to a bad outcome. But instead of responding that one of the bad outcomes can be avoided if some condition is met, Terry denies that one of the actions will have a bad effect (he claims that the dam will not burst) and then accepts that an action with a harm may have to occur (open the spillway and flood the town if it rains hard). Since Terry's response doesn't match the reasoning of his answer in the stimulus, (E) is wrong.

I hope that helps!

Jacques

[jonwg5121]

Hi,

I just wanted to follow up on this question and ask why is (C) not the right answer choice. I was stuck between (A) and (C) and chose (A) because Terry's response seemed to be a solution to the problem while in (C) Terry's response seemed to keep the status quo. However, this was just a gut feeling and I was hoping you could suss this out a little bit more. What strategy ("match the method of reasoning" or "match the premises" or "abstract parallelism") would lead to the correct answer. Thank you.

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi John,

You definitely want to find parallels in the stimulus and the answer choice. Let's consider the stimulus.

The 1st party gives us to choices and points out that both have a bad consequence. The 2nd party resolves this dilemma by pointing out that one of the choices mentioned by the 1st party can be made without the bad consequence under the right circumstances.

Choice C runs into problems almost immediately, as the 1st party's reasoning is flawed in a way that didn't exist in the stimulus. The choices presented lead to good consequences, not bad, yet the 1st party reasons that the two consequences are mutually exclusive without showing us why. The more obvious problem with choice C is that the 2nd party doesn't choose one of the choices of the 1st party. The 1st party said that taxes could be lowered or raised, but the 2nd party suggests leaving taxes the same. None of this matches with the stimulus.

Ricky Hutchens

[jlam061695]

I don't quite see how Terry's response in the stimulus follows the principle that "under a certain condition, taking one of the actions would not have a negative effect"? What exactly is "if consumers demand environmental responsibility of all businesses" referring to, the implementation of ecologically sound practices or NOT implementing these practices?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Jlam,

Thanks for the question! Jordan 's comment suggests that businesses are facing a lose-lose scenario, in which they either end up decreasing their market share or polluting. Terry points out that Jordan's option of "invest[ing] the money necessary to implement ecologically sound practices" will not lead to a loss for a business "if consumers demand environmental responsibility of all businesses." (Demanding responsibility in this context means "implementing ecologically sound practices.") This question relies on understanding that market share reflects how well one business is doing relative to other businesses, so if "no particular business will be especially hurt," the idea is that businesses affected in a similar way will not face a loss in market share.

Claire

[Laurianna]

I understand why A is correct, but I'm still a bit confused why E is incorrect.

In answer E, it seems as if Terry brings up a condition in which there would also not be a bad effect ("if we get more heavy rain"), which mirrors the condition in the stimulus: "if consumers demand environmental responsibility"...

Thanks in advance for your help!!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Laurianna,

Thanks for your question! In answer choice (E), the possibility of getting more heavy rain is an undesirable event since Jordan and Terry are concerned about flooding, and heavy rain will likely lead to flooding.

In the stimulus, Jordan proposes an either/or scenario where both options have bad consequences (if businesses are environmentally conscious they will lose market share; but if businesses ignore the environment it will get worse). Terry responds with a third scenario where both of these bad outcomes are averted (businesses care for the environment without losing market share).

In answer choice (E), Jordan proposes an either/or scenario where both options have bad consequences (opening the spillway and flooding the town; leaving the spillway closed and bursting the dam). Terry responds not by proposing a third solution which averts both bad consequences, but by picking one bad choice (opening the spillway and flooding the town) over the other bad choice.

Terry's response is dissimilar to the solution in the stimulus. He's not proposing a solution, but is merely picking one bad outcome over another bad outcome.

I hope that helps clarify things. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[akanshalsat]

Hello!

I get the structure is supposed to be that Jordan says 2 ways in which bad things result, and terry is supposed to take 1 way and show a good thing can result... but how in the world does A do that? How are we to know that "Demanding responsibility" in this context means "implementing ecologically sound practices." I feel like i'm missing something and those two don't openly relate in my eyes? seems way too tricky?

[Adam Tyson]

"Environmental responsibility" and "sound ecological practices" are equivalent. It's not just any kind of responsibility that they are demanding, but environmental responsibility. Every word matters!

My abstraction of this stimulus, akanshalsat, was "Jordan: There are problems with either one of two logically opposite situations. Terry: But if some new element appears, then we can avoid the problems with one of those two situations." Terry has no help to offer in the other situation - if you don't implement the practices, you still have problems - but at least says there is a possibility of avoiding problems in the other case. The new element is consumers demanding environmental responsibility, which would mean implementing the practices would not necessarily lead to a loss of market share.

Answer A is a perfect match if you look at it that way. Jordan sets up two logically opposite situations (it rains or it doesn't rain), both of which have problems. Terry says that there is a new element (buying a hose) that can alleviate the problems in one of those situations (it doesn't rain). Terry has no help to offer in the opposite scenario (if it rains, we've still got problems).

As soon as I looked at it as "some new element is introduced, solving problems in just one case," A became an obvious winner. Look at it again in that light and see if it makes more sense to you now.