#15 - Some food historians conclude that recipes compiled by

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[gcs4v333]

I was stuck between (A) and (C) on this. The crux for me, was whether the analogue with modern chefs served as a different means of arguing the point. If the analogue is an extension of the point that there's insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion of some food historians, then the author is making one argument, with two different modes, and (A) is correct.

If, however, the author is making two different points: insufficient evidence and the analogy, then (C) is correct.

I thought that the "after all" linked the two concepts, so that the author was essentially making the same point, just in two different ways. That the modern chefs analogy was the same "grounds" for rejecting the argument as "few other recipes survived, so Apicius' recipes may have been atypical."

Did I just miss that an analogy is different than a premise about the number of recipes that have survived, even if they're both in use to the same point?

[Dave Killoran]

I was stuck between (A) and (C) on this. The crux for me, was whether the analogue with modern chefs served as a different means of arguing the point. If the analogue is an extension of the point that there's insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion of some food historians, then the author is making one argument, with two different modes, and (A) is correct.

If, however, the author is making two different points: insufficient evidence and the analogy, then (C) is correct.

I thought that the "after all" linked the two concepts, so that the author was essentially making the same point, just in two different ways. That the modern chefs analogy was the same "grounds" for rejecting the argument as "few other recipes survived, so Apicius' recipes may have been atypical."

Did I just miss that an analogy is different than a premise about the number of recipes that have survived, even if they're both in use to the same point?

Hi G,

Actually, there are problems with (A) that bother me, so let's break it down and see how it works. The answer states that:

• "It rejects a view held by some food historians solely on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support it."

The first part of that statement—"It rejects a view held by some food historians"—concerns me, and makes me a bit skeptical from the outset because the author doesn't outright reject the view, but instead states that it is "far too hasty." That phrasing questions the view but also allows for later acceptance of the view.

The second part states that, "solely on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support it." From my perspective, it's not so much insufficient evidence to support their view, but rather that there is some evidence that could undermine their view. Now, you could extend that and say "well, if there's some evidence against it, that mean they have insufficient evidence," but that's not really the same thing. Plenty of court cases occur where someone has sufficient evidence for a position despite some evidence to the contrary.

When you combine the two pieces above, it adds up to answer that LSAC feels is wrong, and I agree. It's close, but steps over the line in two instances.

Just for fun, let's compare (A) with answer choice (C). Immediately, you can see how it opens in a softer fashion: "It takes issue with the view of some food historians." That (and the later usage of "purportedly") is a more accurate assessment of what occurred than the very strong language in (A).

Next, we have "by providing a modern analogue that purportedly undercuts their view." Did the author use a modern example that was meant to show why food historians conclusion might not be correct? Yes, the "the recipes of many notable modern chefs" is meant to allow for a modern comparison that helps the reader see why those food historians might be wrong. Thus, with (C), each piece occurs, meaning this answer passes the Method Fact Test.

(A) and (C) have similarities in structure, but there are key differences along the way that make (C) the correct answer here.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[NotSureWhy]

Hi Dave,

This does make sense. Thank you. I am a bit stuck on the phease "since few other recipes...have survived." Does this not constitute insufficient evidence? I read this as saying "because we don't know what's out there... we can't jump to conclusions--for all we know, Apicus could be atypical." Was this an incorrect reading?

I was also a bit stuck on the word "undercut." I was not so sure that the analogy itself undercut the view as much as it buttressed the supposition that Apcus could have been atypical. It does me little good to fight with the test, I suppose, but I am still finding myself consistently narrowing to two contenders and selecting the wrong one. I'm wondering if my approach to this question is evidence of something flawed in my approach.

Thanks in advance,
Best,
NotSureWhy

[Jeremy Press]

Hi NotSureWhy,

While I think it's possible to read the reference to few other recipes surviving the way you have, that would simply point up another problem with answer choice A, which is the word "solely." If a conclusion is really being reached "solely" on certain grounds, those have to be the only grounds offered in the argument. Here, the argument goes beyond that reference to few other recipes, and offers an analogy to modern chefs that provides an additional ground in support of the conclusion. (A prime example of how every word matters in these descriptions on Method questions!)

Also notice how answer choice C elegantly deals with the issue you raise: we don't (and probably can't) know to a certainty that the modern analogue in fact undercuts the other food historians' view. But the answer choice says that the analogue "purportedly undercuts" that view. The dictionary definition of "purportedly" is "as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so; allegedly." It means the writers of the test recognize that the analogue might not do what the author of the argument is "alleging" it does. Nevertheless, because the analogue appears as part of a premise supporting the conclusion that the food historians' conclusion is "too hasty," the analogue is being used by the author to take direct aim at that conclusion in an attempt to weaken it (not just to bolster another premise).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[NotSureWhy]

Yes. This is wonderful. Thank you so much. That makes perfect sense.

Best,
NotSureWhy

[justlikemagic]

i get why c is correct, i just want to make sure i understand why e is incorrect. so the issue is “tries to bolster a *conclusion about the similarity of historical times to modern times*”

and that is in fact something that never happens. There’s one conclusion from some food historians where they say “the recipes from apicus reliably indicate how wealthy romans prepared and spiced their food.” and the author’s conclusion says “no that’s far too hasty to conclude.” so there’s no conclusion that does what E says, so, you can't bolster a conclusion that doesn’t exist.

e says it bolsters a conclusion of "..." BY "comparing .... modern analogue" so anything that the lsat writers could have written after "by" would not have an effect since that conclusion is non existent in the first place, right??

and one more question, quickly ignoring the first part: "it bolsters a conclusion... times," everything that does come after "by" IS accurate right? the author does do that but not to bolster that specific conclusion stated in e

[Adam Tyson]

Your analysis of the first part of the answer is perfect, justlikemagic, and it illustrates an important step in analyzing any Method of Reasoning answer, which is determining if the answer is "true." The correct answer has to accurately describe something that actually happened in the argument. If it describes something that did not happen, then the answer is incorrect, no matter what the rest of the answer does! Flaw in the Reasoning answers also have to pass this test, which is a good way to eliminate a lot of wrong answers to those questions.

I'd say that the second half of the answer is also untrue, though, because the author never compares the conclusion to anything. All the author does is offer some modern evidence to undermine the conclusion by showing that there is another possible interpretation of the data.