#4 - Weaken

[alison]

I am having a definition issue with a word commonly used on the LSAT. The difference is Analogy Vs. Counterexample

Can you please define what these mean in LSAT terms?

I got confused about this definition on Question 4, section 2 (RC), December 2000 LSAT. It asks which one of the scenarios if true would most clearly be a counterexample to the views expressed in the last paragraph. The last paragraph talks about how countries with stable to lagging GNP's should not necessarily see this as a bad thing and shoot for a higher per capita GNP but aim for higher levels of economic health as measure by human indicators.

I picked C as the counterexample because it talks about increasing growth in per capita GNP. I didn’t like that answer, but the other choices are pretty limited. The correct answer is B, which to me is not a counterexample but actually fits the model expressed in the last paragraph.

Can you help me understand how B is not the rule but an exception to it?

[Jon Denning]

Hey Alison - good question!

An analogy is generally an example given to try to prove a similar point/case/argument. In other words a specific example designed to support an opinion. A counterexample is an example given to try to disprove a conclusion idea. So the first is supportive while the second is undermining.

For question 4, you’re looking for an answer that gives a specific event that goes against the idea in the last paragraph. Since the last paragraph talks about focusing on human indicators instead of production of goods (GNP), B runs counter to that by showing that a focus on increasing goods yielded a positive benefit for the nation (both in GNP obviously, since that’s what more goods would mean, and in human indicators).

Hope that helps to clarify things!

JD

[nosracgus]

Hi PS,

I am having a very difficult time understanding the answer choices for this question (GNP vs Human Indicators Q4). I think it's because all of the examples are so abstract and we have to find the counter example? I guessed on the question and got it right, but I would really like to have a more in depth grasp on why B is correct and why all of the other answer choices are incorrect. Could you please help with an explanation and/or let me know if there is a strategy I should be using for this type of weaken question?

Thanks!
C

[Frank Peter]

Hi C,

First, we should be sure we understand what the question is asking, so let's focus on the last paragraph. It is basically saying that a better approach would be to focus on improving the human indicators, and ignore how the GNP is doing; it justifies this approach by saying that nations that "do well according to (56) human indicators may thrive even if their per capita GNP remains stable or lags behind that of other nations."

So if we are looking for a counterexample, we are looking for an answer choice that describes a nation focusing on improving its GNP in order to improve the human indicators.

(A) isn't really a counterexample; it sounds like exactly the situation the last paragraph is describing
(B) is our correct answer for the reason stated above.
(C) is similar to (A) in that it's not really a counterexample, but describes a slightly different scenario
(D) is also similar to (A)
(E) is the opposite, except that we're looking for an answer choice where the human indicators actually improve.

[mab9178]

Hi,

The posts above seem to be treating "GNP" and "domestic production of goods" as synonymous, or at least as counter to each "human indicators." Where in the passage is the evidence that "GNP" is synonymous to "domestic production of goods," or that both run counter to "human indicators"?

Furthermore, the author in the last paragraph is not against GNP, but rather against GNP as "the sole indicator of economic success" (line 53), and then, the GNP is an "even if" (line 56).

Granted A, C, and D could be true within the argument made in the last paragraph (or even the whole passage), when it comes down to B and E, the correct answer entails that we know what the writers and the author mean by "domestic production of goods" and hence "increasing" it.

How do we know from the passage what "increasing domestic production" means?

Thank You
Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

The definition of GNP is in the first paragraph, Mazen: "a figure reached by dividing the total value of the goods produced yearly in a nation by its population." Thus, domestic production of goods is a central component of GNP. If a nation's total value of goods produced goes up, that GNP figure should rise; if production drops, so does GNP.

The last paragraph says some nations believe that in order to raise the levels of human indicators they should shift their focus away from GNP and towards something else. Answer B shows that focusing on GNP actually raises levels of those human indicators, which runs counter to that belief. If that's true, then perhaps it would not be wise to shift focus away from GNP?

[mab9178]

Hi Adam: Thank you very much. I see the direct relationship between the GDP and GNP as posted by the mathematical definition of GNP in the passage. GNP=GDP/number of population.

I had to ask because I have read many many posts from honestly more than three prep-courses, all of which advise against doing math that I thought to myself that there must be other language elsewhere in the passage that justifies treating GDP as a integral component in GNP.

Although I personally did not feel at ease with that advice (particularly, first, because I regard "logic" as a branch of mathematics; and second, because the concept of jumping from percentages to absolute numbers and vice versa - a recurring theme on the LSAT - is not as easy to detect as it sounds; not to mention differences between probabilities and possibilities) I thought that I should double check!

Thank You Sir
Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

Whoever is advising you not to do math on the LSAT is giving you very bad advice, in my opinion. There's a lot of math in LR and games, and as you can see here, even in RC. Sometimes the answer to a Must Be True question is based on simple math, like a ratio or a change in average. Same with many Cannot Be True questions.

There is no math section on the LSAT, obviously, and you won't need to do any algebra or geometry, but there is still a lot of math floating around within this test. When the opportunity presents itself to solve a problem with just a little multiplication, division, addition, or subtraction, do it!

[mab9178]

Will do!

Thank You Adam
Mazen