#9 - The use of phrases like "as so-and-so said" or "as

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must be True—Principle. The correct answer choice is (E)

The stimulus in this problem is fairly easy to understand: certain phrases are used to suggest that
what follows the phrase has just been demonstrated. However, such a phrase is misused when it
follows an apparent counterexample.

The question stem asks you to identify the answer that best fits the principle given in the last
sentence of the stimulus. The principle is that a cliché like “as the saying goes” will follow a
situation where the saying is not proven or is inappropriately described. Thus, you should select the
response in which the scenario and the cliché appear contrary to one another.

Answer choice (A): Fatima is quite aware of the fact that much is unknown, and thus the scenario
and saying do not contradict each other. The section that indicates that Fatima dislikes being
reminded how much will go unsolved in her lifetime does not affect the cliché.

Answer choice (B): In one possible interpretation, the scenario might agree with the cliché in this
problem. At worst, the scenario cannot be said to contradict the maxim, because there is no particular
reason to suppose that Harold is not selfish. Either way, this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (C): The cliché actually reflects Roger’s behavior, so this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The saying makes the unwarranted conclusion that Sharon’s husband loves cat
shows or cats, but it is at least true that Sharon’s husband seems to pretend to share a love (or at least
make a sacrifice that reflects regard), so this cliché follows fairly well, and this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Ending up with a broken leg and a partially
ruined ski trip is unquestionably contradictory to everything ending well. This answer choice
perfectly fits the principle in question.

[Tajadas]

I had a lot of trouble understanding the last sentence of the stimulus for this question. When I read "when an apparent counter example has just been given", I assumed the counter example would be counter to the scenario preceding it. So the structure would be scenario, contradiction, counter example that supports the contradiction, then saying. There are no answer choices that really follow this understanding, so I knew my interpretation was not correct. How should a reader know that "counter example" is referring to being counter to the saying, and not counter to the scenario?

[Tajadas]

I had a lot of trouble understanding the last sentence of the stimulus for this question. When I read "when an apparent counter example has just been given", I assumed the counter example would be counter to the scenario preceding it. So the structure would be scenario, contradiction, counter example that supports the contradiction, then saying. There are no answer choices that really follow this understanding, so I knew my interpretation was not correct. How should a reader know that "counter example" is referring to being counter to the saying, and not counter to the scenario?

I should also point out that calling it a "counter example" really messed with me! When I read "counter example", I assumed the "example" must be before the "counter example", like a retort or a counter-attack. I never expected the counter example to be counter to something that occurred after it.

[Jeremy Press]

I had a lot of trouble understanding the last sentence of the stimulus for this question. When I read "when an apparent counter example has just been given", I assumed the counter example would be counter to the scenario preceding it. So the structure would be scenario, contradiction, counter example that supports the contradiction, then saying. There are no answer choices that really follow this understanding, so I knew my interpretation was not correct. How should a reader know that "counter example" is referring to being counter to the saying, and not counter to the scenario?

I should also point out that calling it a "counter example" really messed with me! When I read "counter example", I assumed the "example" must be before the "counter example", like a retort or a counter-attack. I never expected the counter example to be counter to something that occurred after it.

Hi Tajadas,

It seems that your fundamental trouble here is with the definition of the term "counter example," and with what that "looks like" in an argumentative or illustrative context.

Let's start with the definition. A "counter example" is simply an example (a specific case or instance) that runs counter to (i.e. against) something else. What the example runs against could be almost anything. A counter example could be an example that runs against a claim. Let's say my friend makes the claim that "All athletes use steroids." A "counter example" to that claim would be a specific athlete that does not use steroids. A counter example could be an example against a principle/rule. Let's say the rule says, "All 170s scorers on the LSAT should study 5 hours a day." A counter example would be a specific 170s scorer who didn't study 5 hours a day.

What I hope you see from those two examples is that it always matters to first try to discover what the "counter example" is supposed to be "counter to" (or, "against"). Use the language to assist you. In the stimulus the first sentence tells you when the phrase "as the saying goes" is appropriately used: it's appropriately used when the quote that follows the phrase has "just been illustrated" (i.e., by an example, rather than a counter example!). That means it's appropriate to use it when a true example of the quote has just been given (right before the phrase). That defines the structure you were looking for: in an appropriate usage, we would need a true example of the quote, then the saying, then the quote. For example, "I had to study like crazy for the LSAT but it led me to a great score. As the saying goes, 'all's well that ends well.'"

When, however, what has "just been given" (i.e. what has been stated as an example before the phrase and the quote) is a counter example, then the phrase is inappropriately used. Thus, to illustrate inappropriate usage, we need a counter example (something that runs against the quote), then the phrase, then the quote. That's answer choice E!

I hope this helps!

[jonathan95129]

I had a lot of trouble understanding the last sentence of the stimulus for this question. When I read "when an apparent counter example has just been given", I assumed the counter example would be counter to the scenario preceding it. So the structure would be scenario, contradiction, counter example that supports the contradiction, then saying. There are no answer choices that really follow this understanding, so I knew my interpretation was not correct. How should a reader know that "counter example" is referring to being counter to the saying, and not counter to the scenario?

I should also point out that calling it a "counter example" really messed with me! When I read "counter example", I assumed the "example" must be before the "counter example", like a retort or a counter-attack. I never expected the counter example to be counter to something that occurred after it.

Hi Tajadas,

It seems that your fundamental trouble here is with the definition of the term "counter example," and with what that "looks like" in an argumentative or illustrative context.

Let's start with the definition. A "counter example" is simply an example (a specific case or instance) that runs counter to (i.e. against) something else. What the example runs against could be almost anything. A counter example could be an example that runs against a claim. Let's say my friend makes the claim that "All athletes use steroids." A "counter example" to that claim would be a specific athlete that does not use steroids. A counter example could be an example against a principle/rule. Let's say the rule says, "All 170s scorers on the LSAT should study 5 hours a day." A counter example would be a specific 170s scorer who didn't study 5 hours a day.

What I hope you see from those two examples is that it always matters to first try to discover what the "counter example" is supposed to be "counter to" (or, "against"). Use the language to assist you. In the stimulus the first sentence tells you when the phrase "as the saying goes" is appropriately used: it's appropriately used when the quote that follows the phrase has "just been illustrated" (i.e., by an example, rather than a counter example!). That means it's appropriate to use it when a true example of the quote has just been given (right before the phrase). That defines the structure you were looking for: in an appropriate usage, we would need a true example of the quote, then the saying, then the quote. For example, "I had to study like crazy for the LSAT but it led me to a great score. As the saying goes, 'all's well that ends well.'"

When, however, what has "just been given" (i.e. what has been stated as an example before the phrase and the quote) is a counter example, then the phrase is inappropriately used. Thus, to illustrate inappropriate usage, we need a counter example (something that runs against the quote), then the phrase, then the quote. That's answer choice E!

I hope this helps!

I'm a little confused why E is correct. I actually thought that the quote in E was illustrating the scenario because it was saying that:
if [All is well] then it [ends well].
A contrapositive of this would be that if it does not end well then all is not well. Is this an incorrect way of looking at the problem or is it precisely because we have a contrapositive of the quote in E that it is contradicted? If anything, I anticipated (while reading the question) for the scenario to suggest that Raoul actually thought all went well in the trip, despite it ending poorly. In that case, it would seem to me that the quote "Alls well that ends well" is countered. But in a situation where the validity of the quote can stand because all did not end well, I struggle to see why E is definitively correct. Can you or another tutor explain how to think about this problem?

[atierney]

Hello Mr. Jonathan,

Wow, well I think we have a simple solution to your question. But before we do, I'm actually really interested in your explanation of your question, so allow me to address that.

So, your decision to transfer the statement "all is well that ends well" is a little suspect, in that, the term "all," by itself doesn't necessarily indicate a conditional statement. Regardless however, I think that you transferred it incorrectly. The all humans are mortal is not the same as saying all is human that is mortal. The former would be read, in conditional language as "if human, then mortal," while the latter would be read as "if mortal, then human." In other words, the subject, whatever it is that "all" modifies, will become the sufficient conditional for the conditional statement so constructed. Thus, the proper reading of this particular quote transferred to conditional language would read, all that ends well is well, or If it ends well, then it is necessarily well. The "all" here, actually, attaches to the clause modified by "that," so that, what we are saying is, everything that ends well is well.

So, this is the correct reading of the phrase, and so then, we get to the contrapositive, which is if it is not well, then it does not end well. And this sounds a little weird, I admit, but this is why I don't know that it's particularly helpful to think about this way, which, in my opinion, is the chief determining factor in any tool's use. Anyway, so applying the statement, contrapositive or not, to the scenario, it's clear that the trip probably didn't go as planned for Raoul. That is to say he didn't plan on breaking his leg during the trip, and certainly didn't plan (medical insurance or not) on racking up probably ten of thousands of dollars worth of fees during his two week extended stay at the hospital. And notice that, this is how the trip ends. It doesn't end well. Thus, we can say here, this is a case where the trip did not end well, and therefore, it probably (but not definitively) not well for him.

So, in essence, what we are saying is that the quote "All is well that ends well" is misplaced in this context (assuming the LSAT has no sense of sarcasm). But wait! This is exactly what the question is asking. Which is an example of misusing a quote, or using it inappropriately. My guess is that you might have misread that this is what the question wanted you to address. But hopefully you can see how, regardless of how you interpret "All's well that ends well" in the language of conditional logic, it certainly isn't what Raoul wants to hear being cooked up in a hospital with a broken leg.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[lsatstudent99966]

Could someone please explain this? I don't understand why (E) is right and (A) is wrong.

The cliche in (E) is “All is well that ends well”. I thought a counter-example would be something that is “All well” despite not “ending well”. It’s true that Raoul didn't end well, but no one says that “all is well” for Raoul. So how is this a counter-example?

As for (A), Fatima knows that most of the problems she thinks about will remain unsolved. But there is no indication that Fatima knows a lot already (the only indication seems to be the fact that Fatima is a mathematician, but does this count?) It seems like Fatima knows she won’t be able to solve most of the problems at the outset. She knows she won’t solve them and she’s thinking about how to solve them at the same time. Isn’t this a counter-example of the cliche?

[lsatstudent99966]

Could someone please explain this? I don't understand why (E) is right and (A) is wrong.

The cliche in (E) is “All is well that ends well”. I thought a counter-example would be something that is “All well” despite not “ending well”. It’s true that Raoul didn't end well, but no one says that “all is well” for Raoul. So how is this a counter-example?

As for (A), Fatima knows that most of the problems she thinks about will remain unsolved. But there is no indication that Fatima knows a lot already (the only indication seems to be the fact that Fatima is a mathematician, but does this count?) It seems like Fatima knows she won’t be able to solve most of the problems at the outset. She knows she won’t solve them and she’s thinking about how to solve them at the same time. Isn’t this a counter-example of the cliche?

Sorry, I wanted to revise my question regarding answer choice (E).

The cliche in (E) is "All is well that ends well" (if "end well", then "all is well") , so I thought a counterexample would be something that isn't "all well" despite "ending well".

I'm looking for a counterexample here, and a counterexample should be something that "refutes or disproves a proposition or theory," according to Merriam-Webster.

The example in (E) only tells us that the event didn't end well. This means that the sufficient condition of the rule in (E) wasn't even met. How could this disprove the rule? I thought that to disprove the rule, we need an example where the sufficient condition of the rule is met, but the necessary condition in the rule is still missing .

Thanks in advance!!!

[Adam Tyson]

When using one of these quotes correctly, according to the principle, "the quote that follows has just been illustrated." So an inappropriate use of a saying would be one where the quote that follows has not just been illustrated. The correct answer will break the rule established in the stimulus.

Answer A doesn't show something contrary to what Fatima is experiencing. She is a mathematician, and she is pondering the unsolved problems in mathematics. She had to learn a lot about math to understand how much there was that she still did not know and might never know. The saying seems to match her situation. It isn't contrary to it.

Raoul's situation did not end well, so saying "all's well that ends well" makes no sense. The use of the saying in that case is inappropriate, because the quote that followed the story was not illustrated by the story.

One final note: the sayings are not conditional statements, so don't analyze them that way. The only conditional element in this stimulus is the principle itself, which could be thought of this way:

"If the use of the phrase is appropriate, it illustrates what came before it."

Since we are looking for a situation that is inappropriate, the correct answer will be a contrapositive: the quote will not illustrate what came before it, and therefore the use of the phrase is inappropriate.