#21 - Jane: Professor Harper's ideas for modifying the

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Method. The correct answer choice is (E)

This is one of the all-time classic LSAT questions. The stimulus features two speakers—Jane and Mark—so let's look at what each says:

• Jane: Jane's argument has three levels: a premise, a premise/subconclusion, and then a main conclusion. These pieces are not given in order, however, which makes understanding what was said more challenging. The order in the stimulus is: main conclusion, premise, subconclusion.
  
  Specifically, Jane opens with a very strong conclusion, namely that Professor Harper's ideas about modifying guitars are of no value. This statement is followed by a premise indicator ("because"), and Jane's base premise is that musicians don't agree on what a guitar should sound like, and that on that basis we can conclude that there's no widely accepted basis for evaluating guitar sound. Essentially, Jane is saying, "No one agrees what guitars should sound like, and because of that there's no way to evaluate guitar sound, and so Harper's ideas are worthless."
  
  
  Mark: It initially appears that Mark is in full agreement with Jane, as indicated by the "What's more..." opening to his statement. But that is not the entirely case, and you can't be lulled by this opening comment. Don't trust LSAT speakers to tell you the truth!
  
  Mark's argument, when summarized, is that it's been so long now that if Harper's ideas really were of value then they'd be in widespread use now. Clearly they haven't been, and so Mark implies that Harper's ideas aren't that good. From this angle, it's clear that Mark agrees with Jane that Harper's ideas aren't good. So far, so good.
  
  But look closely at what Mark uses as his justification: the Torres design took only ten years to be adopted because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality. So, Mark believes that you can in fact evaluate a guitar's sound and determine what sounds better. This is a problem because Jane disagrees with that.
  
  So, the two speakers come to the same conclusion about Harper, but underneath it all their arguments rest on opposing foundations. That's not easy to determine in less than a minute!

With the above understanding in mind, we can move to the answers. But be forewarned: the answers in the problem are masterfully created.


Answer choice (A): This is not the case. Mark offers a different reason for why Harper's ideas don't have value, but that explanation doesn't address a weakness in Jane's argument. This isn't to say Jane's argument has no weakness, just that Mark hasn't addressed any such issue.

Answer choice (B): This answer is incredibly close, but the word "premise" is a problem. Mark's argument has a conclusion in common with Jane's, not a premise.

Answer choice (C): This is a classic Reverse Answer. If the words similar and different were switched, this answer would be correct, because Mark and Jane "use different techniques to argue for similar conclusions." But that's not what the answer says, and so it is incorrect. Very tricky!

Answer choice (D): An argument is the full spectrum of pieces, including both the premise and the conclusion(s). Mark could be said to have restated Jane's conclusion perhaps, but Mark did not restate the entire argument made by Jane, and so this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the beliefs of each speaker as they relate to evaluating guitar sound are in opposition, and that relationship is correctly described as conflicting suppositions in this answers.

[Arindom]

Hi,

I chose ans. choice D for this question because I think both Jane and Mark feel that Harper's ideas haven't really taken root but their reasons for supporting this conclusion are different. So, doesn't Mark restate Jane's argument in other terms, then?

Thanks.

- Arindom

[Ladan Soleimani]

Hi Arindom,

This question can be difficult because it is clear that Mark and Jane are agreeing that Harper's ideas are not valuable; they have the same conclusion, but different premises, but then there isn't an answer choice that clearly reflects that.

The problem with answer choice (D) is that Mark is not just restating Jane's argument. He reaches the same conclusion but he gets there a different way. His reasoning is that Harper's designs should have been adopted already if they represented an improvement, like Torres's designs were adopted. Jane's premise is that there is no universal understanding of what a guitar should sound like and thus no way of evaluating the merit of the sound. Mark directly contradicts Jane's premise that there is no way to evaluate sound quality when he states that Torres's design was adopted because of an improvement of sound, which is why answer choice (E) is correct. I hope that helps!

Ladan

[biskam]

So is supposition more an assumption or a premise?

THank you!

[James Finch]

Hi Biskam,

In this case "supposition" refers to a premise--but assumptions are also premises, just unstated ones. Because here the contradiction is between stated premises, we would not refer to them as assumptions.

Hope this clears things up!

[cmorris32]

Hi Biskam,

In this case "supposition" refers to a premise--but assumptions are also premises, just unstated ones. Because here the contradiction is between stated premises, we would not refer to them as assumptions.

Hope this clears things up!

Hi James,

I was wondering what the exact definition of "supposition" is? I would just like to know for the future if I see this word on my test. Does it usually just refer to a premise - and then if that premise is unstated, it is an assumption??

[Dave Killoran]

In logic it typically means something taken for granted—as in a assumption or a belief. However, when referred to in something like a study or scientific research, a supposition is usually the starting principles of the study (so again, taken for granted, but more often enunciated clearly prior to starting).

If you define it as something the author or a speaker has taken to be the case or believes in, you won't have any issues

[flowskiferda]

I got this question right, but I spent a long time deliberating between A and E, and still do not see why A is completely wrong. One weakness in Jane's argument is that perhaps there is an objective basis for evaluating guitar sound. Mark's argument patches this weakness by suggesting that even if you reject her assumption that there's no such thing as "superior sound," it is still the case that Professor Harper's ideas are of no value.

I guess I still recognized that E was more right than A, but I would like to know how I can more conclusively reject it in case I run into a similar question. Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Flow,

Thanks for the question. I just did a video for this question for a new LR course we just launched, so I had the opportunity to get in-depth with this question again. It's a great one

First, if you haven't already, please re-read my explanation at the top of this thread. I go into detail about what's happening here, and the explanation of the reasoning each uses is critical to understanding why (A) is incorrect. In other words, don't just read the explanation to (A); that won't resonate as much unless you read the analysis prior to it.

Second, Mark doesn't actually patch anything, because he uses a fundamentally different set of beliefs to discuss the issue. If Mark happens to be correct, then Jane's argument—which rests on the belief that you can't figure out a good guitar sound—isn't fixed, it's wrecked. So, Mark's reply as stated can't help Jane's argument. It's a tricky point because I get how you interpreted it, but once you realize they come from opposing positions of belief, (A) isn't attractive.

Thanks!

[dshen123]

Complete Question Explanation

Method. The correct answer choice is (E)

This is one of the all-time classic LSAT questions. The stimulus features two speakers—Jane and Mark—so let's look at what each says:

• Jane: Jane's argument has three levels: a premise, a premise/subconclusion, and then a main conclusion. These pieces are not given in order, however, which makes understanding what was said more challenging. The order in the stimulus is: main conclusion, premise, subconclusion.
  
  Specifically, Jane opens with a very strong conclusion, namely that Professor Harper's ideas about modifying guitars are of no value. This statement is followed by a premise indicator ("because"), and Jane's base premise is that musicians don't agree on what a guitar should sound like, and that on that basis we can conclude that there's no widely accepted basis for evaluating guitar sound. Essentially, Jane is saying, "No one agrees what guitars should sound like, and because of that there's no way to evaluate guitar sound, and so Harper's ideas are worthless."
  
  
  Mark: It initially appears that Mark is in full agreement with Jane, as indicated by the "What's more..." opening to his statement. But that is not the entirely case, and you can't be lulled by this opening comment. Don't trust LSAT speakers to tell you the truth!
  
  Mark's argument, when summarized, is that it's been so long now that if Harper's ideas really were of value then they'd be in widespread use now. Clearly they haven't been, and so Mark implies that Harper's ideas aren't that good. From this angle, it's clear that Mark agrees with Jane that Harper's ideas aren't good. So far, so good.
  
  But look closely at what Mark uses as his justification: the Torres design took only ten years to be adopted because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality. So, Mark believes that you can in fact evaluate a guitar's sound and determine what sounds better. This is a problem because Jane disagrees with that.
  
  So, the two speakers come to the same conclusion about Harper, but underneath it all their arguments rest on opposing foundations. That's not easy to determine in less than a minute!

With the above understanding in mind, we can move to the answers. But be forewarned: the answers in the problem are masterfully created.


Answer choice (A): This is not the case. Mark offers a different reason for why Harper's ideas don't have value, but that explanation doesn't address a weakness in Jane's argument. This isn't to say Jane's argument has no weakness, just that Mark hasn't addressed any such issue.

Answer choice (B): This answer is incredibly close, but the word "premise" is a problem. Mark's argument has a conclusion in common with Jane's, not a premise.

Answer choice (C): This is a classic Reverse Answer. If the words similar and different were switched, this answer would be correct, because Mark and Jane "use different techniques to argue for similar conclusions." But that's not what the answer says, and so it is incorrect. Very tricky!

Answer choice (D): An argument is the full spectrum of pieces, including both the premise and the conclusion(s). Mark could be said to have restated Jane's conclusion perhaps, but Mark did not restate the entire argument made by Jane, and so this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the beliefs of each speaker as they relate to evaluating guitar sound are in opposition, and that relationship is correctly described as conflicting suppositions in this answers.

I thought A says, " no value because there is no general agreement" meaning, there should be general agreement for it to have value?? Am I interpreting it wrong? I feel like it can be interpreted as "there is no general agreement however there should be general agreement for it to have value" ? please help