#24 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (C).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mN2mmvf]

Hi,

Why is the credited response (C) and not (A)?

I thought, on the LSAT, the word "refute" meant absolutely, logically disprove. That's not happening here.

Whereas (A) seems consistent with the fact that the author is explaining their purpose of showing the "continuous change hypothesis" -- which is an argument about black economic progress -- to be incomplete...incomplete because it denies the role of anti-discrimination laws.

Thanks.

[Claire Horan]

Hi mN2mmvf,

"Refute" is already an academic word without a looser, colloquial meaning, so there's no need to limit its definition further. "Refute" just means to prove wrong, deny, or contradict. Also, having the purpose of refuting does not mean the person fully succeeds, so your concern about whether the author was able to fully refute the continuity hypothesis isn't something to be concerned with. The question is about the author's purpose, not how successful he or she is.

Your other disagreement with the answer choice is more important to refute.

Your description of the continuous change hypothesis is a little too general to be useful. What do the continuous change scholars actually argue?

Lines 10-15 state that

proponents of the "continuous change" hypothesis believe that United States federal law had a marginal impact...

This directly conflicts with the authors assertion that the anti-discrimination laws had an important impact.

The structure of the passage also shows that the author's main purpose is to argue against the continuous change hypothesis. A hypothetical passage that answer choice (A) would match with might discuss how a particular theory correctly explained some phenomenon but point out how it was unable to explain something else. That hypothetical author's purpose would be to show that the theory was incomplete, rather than just to refute it.

[sherrilynm]

Hi,

I'm confused as to how lines 49-53 do not support A? They say, "An additional problem for continuity theorists is how to explain the rapid acceleration of black economic progress in the United States after 1964. Education alone cannot account for the rate of change."

Doesn't this wording mean that the argument is incomplete?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi sherrilynm,

Keep in mind that we're looking for the primary purpose of the passage. A can be true and still not be the primary purpose of the passage. The purpose isn't just to explain that an argument is incomplete (which is not very strong wording), it is to refute it and explain why it is wrong. Does that make sense?

[jonathan95129]

Hi sherrilynm,

Keep in mind that we're looking for the primary purpose of the passage. A can be true and still not be the primary purpose of the passage. The purpose isn't just to explain that an argument is incomplete (which is not very strong wording), it is to refute it and explain why it is wrong. Does that make sense?

In distinguishing between a passage whose purpose is to refute an argument as opposed to show that an argument is incomplete, should we look and evaluate specifically the conflict involved in the passage?

For example, A has an opinion while B has another opinion. In the passage, A argues that B's opinion is wrong and A's opinion is right. This would be an example of an intent to refute.

Conversely, if instead A says that B's opinion does not account for X, would this be enough to constitute that A's primary purpose is to show that an argument is incomplete? Or would such only occur when the passage exists without the conflicting presence of A's differing opinion?

Finally, consider if A has an opinion and B has an opinion. A suggests that B's opinion does not account for X, therefore A's opinion is correct. Would this count as an intent to refute or to show that B's argument is incomplete?

[atierney]

Hi Jonathan,

I think the head of the nail has been hit with your analyses of the first two situations you mention. Attempting to refute an argument, as here, definitely is one in which the author is seeking to poke holes into rather than simply mention that holes exist. This is also closely tied to tone, and certain key phrases such as the introduction of the third paragraph and the transition into the fourth with ("an additional problem" language). The nature of both paragraphs demonstrate the author's in presenting evidence to specifically dispute claims made by the argument rather than evidence of which the argument cannot explain.

One other thing to note about the differentiation between incomplete arguments and refuted ones is that the subject of the argument and the area of inquiry in which it is laid are also pertinent in discriminating between the two purposes. Here, where the claim is being made about an historical event or impact some event had on history, the arguments made are less likely to considered "incomplete," because the data upon which one is relying, historical tends, etc., are more narrow in scope than say an emerging field of science or other claim based on independent and evolving empirical evidence. In other words, I would expect to see the "incomplete argument" purpose more likely attributed to those passages talking about a theory in natural science or otherwise, in which the claims made are attempting to explain natural phenomenon, rather than a specific (more narrow) event.

Finally, as to your question regarding what to label an argument that has elements of both (the opponent's argument doesn't account for X and is therefore both incomplete and wrong/refuted), I would definitely say that, aside from what's been here aforementioned, it would be difficult to formulate a general rule without further context. I think any time an argument is deemed "incorrect," the purpose is more likely to be a refutation, especially where the theory so deemed incorrect is the prevailing theory in the field; however, I would consider whether the author specifically exalts another theory above the refuted one (as in your example) and whether the focus of the passage appears to be on this refutation generally, rather than the X the theory doesn't account for (and is therefore incomplete).

Let me know if you have further questions on this.