#24 - One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet

[powerguy]

Steve,

Thanks for your reply. However, I was thinking in terms of "didn't hate" ~ "love" and "wouldn't watch" ~ watch

Let me try:

I like Charlie Sheen to an extent that I would watch his show. do you think that this one's okay?

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

That's not really the same as saying that you don't hate him enough to actively avoid his show, because hatred and affection are not exactly like heads and tails--that is, a lack of one does not necessarily dictate the presence of the other.

For example, it's possible that you don't hate Sheen, but you don't like him.

And it's possible that you don't dislike him enough to avoid his show, but because of a tight schedule you don't intend to watch it.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[powerguy]

Steve,

One final question before we wrap-up this thread. Is this correct?

I hated Charlie Sheen not so much as I wouldn't watch his show.

(Negation) - I didn't hate Charlie Sheen to an extent that I wouldn't watch his show.

OR

(Negation) I didn't hate Charlie Sheen not to an extent that I would watch his show.

Do you think the above is accurate ?

[Steve Stein]

Hi Powerguy,

Can you restate the question? I can't really understand your sentence, and it's not clear whether you are attempting to create a restatement or a negation.

If you could, try to rephrase your stimulus, and let me know whether you are then trying to restate it in different words, or negate it to find its logical opposite.

Thanks!

~Steve

[powerguy]

Steve,
Thanks for your reply.

I was hoping to negate "I hated Charlie Sheen not so much as I wouldn't watch his show."

Here's what I think the negated sentence would be:

"I didn't hate Charlie Sheen to an extent that I wouldn't watch his show. "

OR

"I didn't hate Charlie Sheen not to an extent that I would watch his show."

I really appreciate your help.

Thanks,
PG

[Steve Stein]

Hi Powerguy,

A question for you, since your examples aren't clear: what do you mean when you say "negated sentence"?

A) its logical opposite
B) a restatement in different terms

I know how we use it, but your usage appears to be different.

Thanks,

~Steve

[powerguy]

I meant 'logical opposite'. Please let me know the negated version. Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. If your original sentence was "I lack the kind of hatred for Sheen that would keep me from watching his show," then the negated version would be "I hate Sheen so much that I avoid his show."

I hope that's helpful! let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[LSATer]

I don't understand why B is wrong.

The conclusion is " Thus, a young child' taste preference can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to."

So for this conclusion to be true, wouldn't it have to be true that a child's preference usually change between age one and age two?

If I negate B " A child's taste preference does not usually change between age one and age two" it hurts the conclusion.

Someone please explain to me what I am missing here.


Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Try that negation of B again, LSATer, and I think you'll find that it actually strengthens the conclusion of the argument, proving that the answer cannot be an assumption of the argument.

Our author is trying to prove that the food you eat will cause your food preferences to change. If I feed you salty food long enough, you will eventually come to prefer it over sweet food, even though you previously preferred sweet food. I think of it as sort of a "Stockholm Syndrome" of food preferences.

If food preferences usually change between one and two years of age, then this transformation over the course of that year for the children studied might have nothing to do with having been fed salty food over the course of that year. It could have just happened on its own due to those natural changes. When I negate B, I say that preferences don't usually change over that time, but I know from the experiment in the stimulus that these kids did have a change. They were apparently out of the ordinary, if the negation of B is true. This eliminates random chance or ordinary natural changes as possible alternate causes for the changing preference exhibited by these kids. Eliminating alternate causes is one of our favorite ways to strengthen a causal argument!

We don't want it to be true that tastes usually change - we want it to be odd that they changed, giving us more reason to believe that the change was due to the prominence of salty food. Otherwise, the diet over that year might have had no impact at all and been a complete waste of time and effort.

Take another look and see if you see it now. Keep at it, you'll get there!