#17 - It is the mark of a superior conductor that he or she

[LSAT student]

Hello,

Can someone please explain how choice (C) is incorrect? And would it be possible to get the right answer if you did not use the negation technique? I'm still struggling with it.

[Robert Carroll]

L,

This is an Assumption question, so a ready way to get rid of answer choice (C) is to see that it's too strong. Superior conductors have the authority to insist that rehearsal work must be intensified. But that's a mark of them, so there's no need for it to be true of conductors who aren't superior - in fact, the author probably thinks conductors who are not superior can't make such demands! So note that answer choice (C) applies to all conductors, and that the argument does not need the orchestra to be accommodating to any but superior conductors. That makes answer choice (C) too broad, and thus wrong for this Assumption question.

The Assumption Negation Technique always works to get the correct answer for Assumption questions, but it's not necessary to use it. It's a tool - use it when appropriate! I find that, for many Assumption questions, I can see straightforwardly that one answer has to be assumed, and usually matches my prephrase anyway. In those cases, I don't need the Assumption Negation Technique. But with more difficult questions, or ones where I have more than one Contender, or any other time I'm a bit stuck, the Technique is a good way to clarify the nature of the answer. If the answer is right, its negation should destroy the argument. So I can come at the question another way by asking "Does the opposite of this answer refute the argument?" That's just a way of saying "Does this answer itself need to be assumed?" So it just rephrases the relationship between the correct answer and the argument in a way that might make it more clear whether an answer has to be assumed.

In this case, without the Technique, I might think: "Maybe the orchestra can't respect what they haven't finished doing. The superior conductor needs to win respect for something before the orchestra is going to rehearse it, so I need to assume that orchestras can respect things they might not fully understand yet. Or at least top orchestras can!" That gets me a prephrase, which I can see matched in answer choice (D).

Robert Carroll

[lsatstudying11]

Hi!

I can see why D is the best answer, but I am still struggling why this is something that the author presupposes. Couldn't we interpret this as a hypothetical or theoretical argument that, in reality, does not work? I guess I am confused why the validity of the argument is tied to the idea that this precondition must be possible in the real world? I guess I am wondering, what is wrong with the author simply claiming that to get the authority the conductor's needs to win the orchestra's respect when the sad reality might just be that it is never actually possible to win the orchestra's respect like this. I guess a parallel way to think of it would be saying something like in order to time travel, you need to have certain tools to be able to achieve this goal. But then here, how does the actual possibility of having (vs. not having) those certain tools really matter for the validity of this argument? Apologies for the super confusing question! And thank you for all of your help

[Robert Carroll]

l,

I think there are a few points to make here.

First, every author thinks his/her argument works. This is related to the "Mind of an LSAT author" vs "Mind of the makers of the LSAT" distinction we sometimes talk about. I know the Logical Reasoning Bible has a discussion about this; I also found a post by Adam discussing it a bit: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewt ... 336#p47336

There, Adam says:

In an Assumption question, you are right that we need to put ourselves in the mind of the author. We do not have to accept that his argument is valid - it's almost certainly NOT a good argument, because something has been left out. However, we have to approach it with the idea that the AUTHOR thinks he is right, and that means there are certain things that he has to believe are true, even though he didn't say them. Those are the assumptions, and those are what we are looking for.

From the author's perspective, there is nothing hypothetical about the argument. The author thinks he/she is making a point, and, in order to make that point, the author had to make certain assumptions. Answer choice (D) is one of those assumptions.

A second point I have is as follows (and it's related to the first point). The possibility that answer choice (D) talks about might not exist in reality, but the author would not recognize that. If that possibility is illusory, then the author would never have even attempted this argument in the first place, because then superior conductors would just be logically impossible.

A third, related, point is this - note that in the previous paragraph I said that superior conductors would be logically impossible if answer choice (D) is false. That's stronger than saying that superior conductors don't exist in reality. Answer choice (D) is saying that something "can" be the case, not that something "is" the case. So if the conditions for superior conductors don't exist in our reality, that's not enough to defeat the author's argument. If the conditions for superior conductors are not possible at all, THEN the author is wrong. I think I can illustrate with an argument:

"Anyone who wins the World Championship, the Wijk aan Zee tournament, and the Hastings tournament in the same year will be awarded a medal made of rhodium. The value of this medal exceeds our current account balance. Thus, we should make some effort to increase our account balance."

Now, what if no one ever has won or ever will win all of those tournaments in the same year? I don't think that's fatal to the argument - unless we somehow know that no one will win all those tournaments, it makes some sense to try to prepare for the eventuality. What if, instead, it's not possible to win all of those tournaments? Maybe Wijk aan Zee and the World Championship never occur in the same year, or there's some other problem. THAT would be utterly fatal to the argument.

I think similar considerations apply to superior conductors. If orchestras don't behave a certain way, those superior conductors don't exist; if orchestras can't behave a certain way, the very idea of a superior conductor is fatally undermined. Avoiding the latter problem is what answer choice (D) is accomplishing.

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

Is the first sentence, the conclusion, SUPPORTED by the other sentences or is it more like an explanation for HOW the superior conductor is able to maintain his authority?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ashpine,

I'd say that the later parts of the stimulus do support that first sentence. They do it by explaining how it is that the superior conductor can get that hard work out of the orchestra to be excellent. They are able to inspire the orchestra to put in the extra hours. An explanation of how something works is one way to provide some support for a conclusion.

Hope that helps!