#12- Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician

[voodoochild]

I chose D for this. I was bouncing between C and D and ended up going with D. I see why C is correct. However, I don't know why D is incorrect.

Please help.

I think that there are two ways to interpret D)

D - If "Henry" was moved at the same time slot as the second best show, then there is a good probability that a greater number of people would watch it. (People are ready to sit and watch TV at that time) => strengthener because greater number of people watched the show, and it was not able to hold their attention. Hence, the show is really bad! ...helps author's conclusion.

Another way to interpret this would be : If "Henry" was moved to Wed and aired at the same time as the second best show, a greater people would compare "Henry" with the second best show. Hence, the fact that far fewer people watched it on Wed, proves that it was disliked by people => strengthener and hence, tue's success was definitely due to piggbacking with "that's life".


Either way, this choice seems strengthener to me.

Help please....

Thanks

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

Let's try an exercise with this problem. You've stated two reasons why you think (D) would be correct. However, as we both know, there is no arguing with LSAC, so no matter what we think of this answer, it's still wrong So, let's flip it around, and instead of trying to figure ways that (D) strengthens the argument or argue for that interpretation, take a look at it again and tell me if you can see why (D) wouldn't strengthen the argument, or might even hurt it. I think this might help because the point of studying these questions is to understand their mindset. If you can understand what they are thinking, your ability to answer questions correctly will increase, and your speed in answering those questions will also increase.

So, please take another look at it, and then post back any thoughts you have as to why (D) doesn't strengthen this argument. Try to get inside their heads--why do they think this is wrong?

Thanks and good luck!

[voodoochild]

[My confusion] - The conclusion is not just that "that's life" caused the increase in viewership but also {that the increase in viewership was not because people liked it}. {} - is the key to D in my opinion. D helps me to believe that people didn't like Henry.

To be honest, I am really surprised by your answer because you have mentioned in your book that OAs are always bullet-proof. It's not that test makers exist in an alien world, and they make their own rules, but that their answers are actually correct! The issue is that I am not able to apply the logic correctly in this question.

Please help me

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

Thanks for the reply. I think you may have misunderstood my response, and part of the book. So, let me address my response first, and then I'll address the book portion at the end.

As far as (C), the correct answer here is perfectly defensible. With (D), my point was that it is largely useless to "fight" for an answer that is stated as wrong because you can't get them to change it, and what they say is right or wrong is the final word on the matter (they score the test, so this is what I mean when I say we are playing their game or living in their world). A lot of times I see people fighting to explain why a wrong answer is correct, but that's often a lot of wasted energy (it sometimes also means that someone won't accept the test makers' world view and wants to try to impose their own view on the test--that always leads to problems).

The better exercise is to attempt to see exactly why the test makers think an answer is incorrect, because in doing so you gain a greater knowledge of how they view the logic of the test. Does this mean you should never question an answer or try to explain why you think it is correct when it is in fact wrong? No, definitely not. There's a lot of value in talking about the construction of answers, and how changes to an answer would make it stronger or weaker. You also want to examine your thinking in relation to theirs, so understanding why you think an answer is right (even when it is wrong) is helpful. In your original post, I think you did an excellent job of explaining why you think (D) could be right. However, now that I've had the opportunity to see a number of your questions on the forum, I felt that for you it would be more useful to think about this answer from their perspective, and less from your own.

So, with that said, (C) is clearly correct, and I think you understand why that is the case. Thus, let's dispense with further discussion of that answer (and the argument structure as well, as I think you have a solid grasp on that too). The question remains, then, what do the test makers think is the problem with (D)? How would they explain why it is incorrect?

The other part of your answer that I wanted to address touched on something I said in the LRB. You said that, "you have mentioned in your book that OAs are always bullet-proof. It's not that test makers exist in an alien world, and they make their own rules, but that their answers are actually correct!" First, for anyone reading, "OA" means official answer. Second, the point in my book wasn't exactly as you stated, but rather that LSAT speakers think their arguments are more or less bullet-proof. I didn't say that I personally believed every argument or answer is perfect. While the vast, vast majority of correct answers are rock solid, there are definitely a few out there that I don't love, and in some cases, think are flawed. But, again, what I think doesn't matter--to do well on this test you have to see the test from their perspective. That's my goal here with this whole discussion--to align your thinking with theirs as much a possible (at least for now--after the LSAT is over you can forget about a lot of this ).

Thanks!

[voodoochild]

Dave,
You are correct. Ok so, the basic question that's left is, as stated by you, "what do the test makers think is the problem with (D)? How would they explain why it is incorrect?"

Here's what I think: I re-read the conclusion to see whether I am missing any crucial modifier. I feel that I know why D) is actually wrong.

Conclusion says: We must conclude that Henry was widely watched before the move to Wednesday evenings because it followed That’s Life and not because people especially liked it.

If I use basic parallelism rules, the sentence can be broken down into :

We must conclude that Henry was widely watched before the move to Wednesday evenings because it followed That’s Life.

Henry was widely watched not because people especially liked it.

There are two very important things that I believe that are worth noting. "watched before the move" and " not especially liked it."

Why?

#1 - the conclusion is about watched before the move. Hence, whatever happens after moving the show to Wed could be considered irrelevant. However, since this is a strengthen/weaken problem, as your book says, we cannot and should not consider any answer choice irrelevant or out of scope unless it doesn't have any bearing on the connection between the premise and the conclusion.

So, I could say that #1 is a weak point. But, worth noting from an eye of a debater.

#2 - "not especially liked it "- doen't mean disliked it. It means that the viewers didn't like the program in a special way. This is the key. They could be "liking" the program, just like other programs, may be having a neutral attitude, or disliking the program. D) doesn't help me to strengthen these two variances. However, D) helps in strengthening only the "dislike" part, whereas the "like" or "irrelevant" part are not clearly strengthened.

Please let me know your thoughts about my analysis.

I am really glad that I found these forums because I am able to have a discussion with you. It's like a dream for me.

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Interesting discussion. Dave has already responded to the most important part of this conversation, with the point that it's good to understand the right and wrong answer choices, but it's not productive to continue a "fight" for an incorrect answer choice. With that said, let's move on to the specifics of this question:

For others reading, I will present the basics of the argument:

The show Henry was not very popular before its move to Tuesdays.

It was popular when it had That's Life , the #1 show on TV, as a lead in, but then its viewership decreased once it moved to Wednesdays.

The author's conclusion is that Henry was not a popular Tuesday show because people particularly liked it, but rather because of it's lead-in show, which was very popular.

The question requires us to strengthen the author's argument that it was all about the lead-in show, not about a particular preference.

Correct answer choice C provides that the new show--the one that now enjoys Henry's nice old time slot (and that #1 show as a lead-in)--has doubled its viewership. This definitely strengthens the author's argument that it's all about the lead-in.

Incorrect answer choice D provides that Henry is now up against the #2 show on TV! This provides a different explanation for the drop in Henry's viewership--it's up against a very popular show. So maybe people actually do like Henry , just not enough for it to beat the #2 show on TV. This weakens the author's argument, so it can be confidently eliminated.

Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Incorrect answer choice D provides that Henry is now up against the #2 show on TV! This provides a different explanation for the drop in Henry's viewership--it's up against a very popular show. So maybe people actually do like Henry , just not enough for it to beat the #2 show on TV. This weakens the author's argument, so it can be confidently eliminated.

If the show is against a popular show, and if the viewership goes down, doesn't it mean that people don't like it? How will that weaken author's argument? In fact, it's irrelevant to author's argument because the author is saying that "that's it" caused the increase the viewership, and it was not because people "especially" liked it. This question is a bummer I hate it for a good reason - it's helping me to get into test maker's shoes.

I am also waiting for Dave's response on my analysis above.

[Dave Killoran]

I agree with Steve 100%--he answered my question above accurately and concisely for you.

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks Dave!

I'll also reply to one specific point of confusion. Voodoo, in your last response to me, you said the following:

If the show is against a popular show, and if the viewership goes down, doesn't it mean that people don't like it? How will that weaken author's argument? In fact, it's irrelevant to author's argument...

If you race against your neighbor, and you lose that race, does that allow us to conclude that you are not particularly fast?

And if we do conclude, based on that premise, that you are not particularly fast, what happens to our conviction in this conclusion when we find out that your neighbor is an Olympic runner?

Our argument is weakened, because it would be unfair to base an assessment of your running ability on a competition against an Olympian.

In the same way, we find out that Henry's new time slot puts it into direct competition with the extremely popular #2 show in all of television. That kind of time slot can kill even a show that people might likely watch otherwise.

Answer choice D weakens the argument, because it would be unfair to base a likability assessment on a competition against a ratings powerhouse.

Let me know whether this makes sense, and whether it's clear why this scenario is analogous.

Thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Steve,
Thanks for your detailed response.
Two thoughts:

#1:
I think I now clearly understand your point, especially after reading the Olympic guy analogy. HEre's what I think. (Please let me know whether my reasoning is correct)

Neighbor Guy : Voodoo is not especially great guitarist.
Critics: Why?
Neighbor Guy : Because Voodoo can't play better than B B King (Assumption: Only King is next to Jimi Hendrix). (Disclaimer : I really love King and Hendrix, and with no disrespect, I don't think they are comparable. Both are equally great, the best)

Critics : Ah ha. That's not correct. You are comparing Voodoo against the #2! You cannot conclude about Voodoo's guitar techniques by comparing him with King.

Neighbor Guy : Ok. Voodoo is not better than John Doe (John Doe is an average guitarist who plays for a local band in the law school)

Critics - Ok. I get it. That makes sense.

Do you think that the above conversation is legitimate? Please let me know.

#2:
Also, I am curious - I wrote an analysis (in my post @Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:37 pm starting with "Dave, You are correct. Ok so, the basic question that's left is, as stated by " ) about the term "not because they especially like it" - I concluded that D) is not a better strengthener than C). Do you see any issues with that ? Just curious.



Thanks!
Voodoo Child