- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Jul 06, 2021
- Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:44 pm
#91430
Hello Alexis,
Yes, before getting into your thought process, a comment on your interpretation of the stimulus as a whole. I think there's an implicit statement being made here by the report's authors that there was essentially no point in thinking about the vision for the future (destination) when the ship has a massive hole in its hull and is hours away from sinking; in other words, sure it's fine to dream of land, but right now they just don't want to dream of being eaten by sharks! And this is especially relevant as to the perception the program garnered by the government, or in other words, those engineers onboard the ship that offer the only expertise in possibly mending the hull to not actually sink. Essentially, you have a situation where the long-term goals are necessarily put off, given the circumstances of the present. This understanding of the stimulus wasn't present in your analysis and I think I would it, because it certainly colors the situation accurately.
Now, in terms of your thought process, I must admit it seems a little convoluted to me. I take what you're saying to be that because the program had a vision (destination or route) in the past presumably (as the ship necessarily had a route or destination), the fact that they are now in trouble, or experiencing a hole in the hull, due to possibly crashing into an iceberg, means that they did a poor job of making the route in the first place (I suppose to designate the destination here as poor would be a little disanalogous). Now, this is true to some extent. Certainly, if they were to go back in the past, they would make sure to avoid the iceberg, so to speak, both my ship and their program, metaphorically speaking; however, it doesn't necessarily refute the fact that they need to work on fixing the problems in the here and now. And this is the key point, and in fact, essentially, what the authors of the report themselves argue. They're going to sink without funding. Therefore, in the eyes of the authors, the best thing they can do is prove to those funding the operation that they are competent in plugging the holes. This, in my estimation is fairly sound reasoning, And hopefully it is clear that it not refuted by looking into the past, but by looking into the future, with answer choice B.
Answer choice B states that regardless of the present competence, regardless of how well holes may be patched, the lack of a coherent route, free of icebergs, whales, sharks, and other dangers, will give rise to near certain doom for the program in the future. I honestly believe that your reasoning in choosing C incorporates this idea, the idea that the lack of coherent vision will cause the program to repeat the same mistakes that was caused by the prior vision. However, B more directly connects future problems, of which present competence cannot assuage, with the lack of a coherent vision, as opposed to answer choice C, which while I commend you on the explanation, was a little labyrinthine to me. One thing to always note of the LSAT: choose the most direct, simple answer. Sometimes, the biggest detractor of scores is the mental gymnastics an young, agile mind loves to perform. I get it, I truly do. But the admissions officials want clarity over speculation, and hopefully it's clear to you that B is the better answer in this respect.
However, as I critiqued your explanation, so too, do I invite you to critique mine! Let me know if you have any more swings on the parallel bars.... this is part of the fun!
Yes, before getting into your thought process, a comment on your interpretation of the stimulus as a whole. I think there's an implicit statement being made here by the report's authors that there was essentially no point in thinking about the vision for the future (destination) when the ship has a massive hole in its hull and is hours away from sinking; in other words, sure it's fine to dream of land, but right now they just don't want to dream of being eaten by sharks! And this is especially relevant as to the perception the program garnered by the government, or in other words, those engineers onboard the ship that offer the only expertise in possibly mending the hull to not actually sink. Essentially, you have a situation where the long-term goals are necessarily put off, given the circumstances of the present. This understanding of the stimulus wasn't present in your analysis and I think I would it, because it certainly colors the situation accurately.
Now, in terms of your thought process, I must admit it seems a little convoluted to me. I take what you're saying to be that because the program had a vision (destination or route) in the past presumably (as the ship necessarily had a route or destination), the fact that they are now in trouble, or experiencing a hole in the hull, due to possibly crashing into an iceberg, means that they did a poor job of making the route in the first place (I suppose to designate the destination here as poor would be a little disanalogous). Now, this is true to some extent. Certainly, if they were to go back in the past, they would make sure to avoid the iceberg, so to speak, both my ship and their program, metaphorically speaking; however, it doesn't necessarily refute the fact that they need to work on fixing the problems in the here and now. And this is the key point, and in fact, essentially, what the authors of the report themselves argue. They're going to sink without funding. Therefore, in the eyes of the authors, the best thing they can do is prove to those funding the operation that they are competent in plugging the holes. This, in my estimation is fairly sound reasoning, And hopefully it is clear that it not refuted by looking into the past, but by looking into the future, with answer choice B.
Answer choice B states that regardless of the present competence, regardless of how well holes may be patched, the lack of a coherent route, free of icebergs, whales, sharks, and other dangers, will give rise to near certain doom for the program in the future. I honestly believe that your reasoning in choosing C incorporates this idea, the idea that the lack of coherent vision will cause the program to repeat the same mistakes that was caused by the prior vision. However, B more directly connects future problems, of which present competence cannot assuage, with the lack of a coherent vision, as opposed to answer choice C, which while I commend you on the explanation, was a little labyrinthine to me. One thing to always note of the LSAT: choose the most direct, simple answer. Sometimes, the biggest detractor of scores is the mental gymnastics an young, agile mind loves to perform. I get it, I truly do. But the admissions officials want clarity over speculation, and hopefully it's clear to you that B is the better answer in this respect.
However, as I critiqued your explanation, so too, do I invite you to critique mine! Let me know if you have any more swings on the parallel bars.... this is part of the fun!
