- Posts: 34
- Joined: Aug 09, 2018
- Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:34 pm
#49940
Hello,
I refuse to make the leap that inaccuracy in one's self reporting of their past (C) is sufficient to prove the conclusion that such studies cannot reliably determine the cause of humans subject's present characteristics.
Consider my entire case:
The answer should itself draw the link between inaccuracy and reliability, which C does not do (no answers do). Sure, inaccuracy in patients' self reporting of their past would make a determination of present characteristics based on the past reporting unreliable. But I know this not because the answer itself forces me to conclude it mathematically, but instead I know it because in our collective realities, this is undeniably true. Putting into practice what is undeniably true would fail in many other LSAT questions of this kind, for example, where the premises and conclusions (and the connection) are demonstrably false in reality, but we have to suspend our own understanding of reality and follow the mathematical progression of the question (see below)**.
LSAT makers can do whatever they want (and evidently they do), but I would want consistency, and not be expected to use reality when it suits them, and use mathematical relationships when it suits them.
**Every other questions I've done regarding Justifying Conclusions connects a premise to a conclusion mathematically. For example,
Premise: A-->B
Conclusion: A-->C
ANSWER: B-->C
Any response is highly appreciated. I am sensitive to the perception that my message is strongly worded, but if its a worthy defence, I'm highly passionate.
I refuse to make the leap that inaccuracy in one's self reporting of their past (C) is sufficient to prove the conclusion that such studies cannot reliably determine the cause of humans subject's present characteristics.
Consider my entire case:
The answer should itself draw the link between inaccuracy and reliability, which C does not do (no answers do). Sure, inaccuracy in patients' self reporting of their past would make a determination of present characteristics based on the past reporting unreliable. But I know this not because the answer itself forces me to conclude it mathematically, but instead I know it because in our collective realities, this is undeniably true. Putting into practice what is undeniably true would fail in many other LSAT questions of this kind, for example, where the premises and conclusions (and the connection) are demonstrably false in reality, but we have to suspend our own understanding of reality and follow the mathematical progression of the question (see below)**.
LSAT makers can do whatever they want (and evidently they do), but I would want consistency, and not be expected to use reality when it suits them, and use mathematical relationships when it suits them.
**Every other questions I've done regarding Justifying Conclusions connects a premise to a conclusion mathematically. For example,
Premise: A-->B
Conclusion: A-->C
ANSWER: B-->C
Any response is highly appreciated. I am sensitive to the perception that my message is strongly worded, but if its a worthy defence, I'm highly passionate.
