#19 - Henry: Engines powered by electricity from batteries

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Harry and sicm,

Harry, I'll address your concern first. You want to make sure you are using the right test for the right question type. The Fact Test isn't relevant for a weaken question (the question type here) because we aren't worried about matching what the stimulus says but we want to find a fact outside the stimulus that would weaken the argument.

sicm, your point is an interesting one, but as a weaken question, it doesn't need to weaken 100 percent. We just need to hurt the argument. If power plants are located away from major cities, they aren't really contributing to urban pollution as they would if they were located near major urban areas.

Hope that helps!

[mab9178]

Please help:

There is a great deal of discussion, sincerely all of which is greatly appreciated!

However, there has been no discussion as to my reasoning for why A is a candidate for elimination, worse answer than B. (I don't believe I missed anything and I hope I am not wrong!)

Here's why I eliminated A:

Umit states:
"Battery-powered vehicles have very short ranges and must be recharged often," emphasis on "very short ranges."

And answer-choice A states that the power plants are at a "significant distance from major cities."

I bring your attention to the contrast between "very short ranges" and "significant distance from major cities."

For A to be correct, I felt that I have to add my own assumption, which is a BIG NO NO, and the assumption I have to add is that "the significant distance" from major cities is still within the "short ranges" of the capacity of the battery-powered cars. Absent this assumption of mine, answer-choice A becomes impractical and should therefore be eliminated.

Worse I was convinced that might help Umit's over Henry, because the "standard battery-powered cars" would not be able to make it to the power plants given their electric charge won't accommodate the significant distances to the electric power plants.

Although I was uncomfortable with B, I felt that it is much stronger because if it offsets the pollution, meaning reduces its own pollution to zero, whether it is in urban areas or somewhere else, it would still dilute the pollution within the major cities.

This question, is the only question that I feel is not one where we choose the best answer. I feel that the LSAT writers are testing for something specific, technical as if we have to recognize to leave commonsense behind on this one!

Powerscore Experts,
Thank you

[mab9178]

Hi,

If I may, I would like to add to my previous post the fact that I struggled with B, precisely because it does not link up to urban pollution, Henry's concern.

A second later, however, I thought to myself that in today's age, among reasonable people, it is common and uncontroversial to acknowledge that cars emissions is gaseous pollution and that it is not restricted to boundaries. From this it must follow, that a net-zero (by "offsetting" per B) anywhere will allow pollution elsewhere to spread into a larger environment thereby eventually reducing it in the urban cities.

Per my preceding post, it seems that each answer-choice, A or B, requires an aded assumption, but forcing the "very short ranges" in the stimulus as stated by Umit into "the significant distance" in answer-choice A seems to be more of an overreach than assuming knowledge that gaseous pollution reduces by spreading out into less polluted areas!

Thank you
Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

The short range of the cars isn't the issue, Mazen. We don't care where the cars go. We care about the pollution generated by the power plants used to recharge them.

The issue is whether the pollution created by recharging them frequently will add to urban pollution. Henry is not arguing about overall pollution, but pollution in cities, so his best response to Umit would be to say that the power plants are not in the cities but somewhere out in the middle of nowhere.

Does this mean that none of their pollution will drift into urban areas? Of course not. But would it mean that they don't pollute cities as much as, say, the exhaust from gasoline powered cars might? Perhaps. And is it the strongest counter Henry could offer out of the five choices given? Absolutely, because none of the other answers does anything to counter Umit's position at all.

The short version of this argument is:

Henry says "less urban pollution";
Umit says "no less urban pollution because power plants";
Henry needs to counter with "yes, less urban pollution despite power plants."
Answer A is the only one that does that.

[mab9178]

Hi Adam,

I heard your response. Respectfully, respectfully, I feel that we cannot ignore how far the cars can go because Umit makes an issue of their range in the stimulus. So for Henry to blow passed that, Henry would be committing the flaw of ignoring the evidence that Umit introduced!

In addition, and please read my response in the way I intend it, with absolute humility, appreciation, respect, and deference to your expertise, the question stem says "if true." So, assuming each answer-choice "true" in the context of the stimulus to which Umit's argument is integral.

Having raised the issues that are still obstructing my ability to clearly see your response. I think the mistake that I made was in defining the term "power plants" in A.

Let's forget whether it is an "electrical" plant for the moment: Generally speaking, a power plant is like an agricultural farm or a drilling oil refinery; we do not go to the oil refinery to get fuel for our cars, and we do not go to a farm to buy our fruits and vegetables (although there was another earlier LSAT diagnostic in which the author of a reading comprehension passage advocated for buying directly from the farm provided the farmers take precautionary measures like purchasing accidental insurance, paving the roads leading to the farm... But I've digressed).

A gas station, on the other hand, is like the intermediary (middleman/middlewoman) between the refinery and the consumer; and in the case of the farm, the intermediary agent would be the grocery store. To buy our fruits and vegetables, we go to the grocery store, we do not go the farm; and people, generally speaking, go to the gas stations to buy gas for their cars, they do not go to the petroleum refineries.

So now back to the context of "electricity," I conflated its plant/farm/refinery for its intermediary/gas station/grocery store.

In retrospect, my false interpretation was problematic. When I was taking the diagnostic, under the gun of the clock, I misconstrued the operational definition of the term "power plant." And worse, when I went back to review it without time constraints, I picked up passed my false definition and so I did not suspect that the heart of my issue was definitional!

I got entangled in my own reasoning (identify the evidence, identify the support, find the gap/flaw the usual LSAT skills), and ultimately I posted my thoughts.

I genuinely thank you for not ignoring my posts, for helping me zoom in on what is important, and hone in my skills.

Finally, this dialogue was extraordinarily helpful, far beyond this question helpful, because it highlights a strategy of broader applicability, and although it's basic, it is quintessential to reset, disentangle, and extricate myself from these circular mazes.

And the strategy is this: Zoom in on key words/phrases/terms, make sure I define them correctly, and make sure not to conflate them with another related term, e.g. oil refinery versus gas station, or a farm versus a grocery store!

Respectfully,
Thank You
Mazen

[mab9178]

Hi Adam,

I want to make sure that I did not miss anything you instructed me to pay attention to. I read your post several times, the last part of your post - "the short version of the argument" - seems to me to be of utmost importance. It captures "the technique" to which I referred in the last paragraph of my first post for this question.

The last paragraph of my first post on this question I write: "I feel that the LSAT writers are testing for something specific, technical [...]"

The last part of your response to my email is:
"The short version of this argument is:
Henry says "less urban pollution";
Umit says "no less urban pollution because power plants";
Henry needs to counter with "yes, less urban pollution despite power plants."
Answer A is the only one that does that."

You say that "A is the only one that does that," as if you'd anticipated the technical tactic of the correct answer-choice prior to moving into the answer-choices, a "technical" tactic for rebutting which the LSAT writers are testing!

That lead me to abstract your "short version" of the argument; from that abstract I can formulate the "technical" argumentative structure, the one the LSAT writers are testing for.

Th abstract is:
First speaker states: X
Second speaker responds: nope, no X because of Y.
First speaker's strategic rejoinder should be: actually, Y and be it so, despite it, we still get X.

So my two-part question is: Does this abstract qualify as the "technical" skill for which the LSAT writers are testing, (or did it just happen to be the best answer among the bunch) and can I chose the answer-choice that captures this rebuttal tactic within the same context every single time and move on?

I realize answering the second part of my question in the affirmative is a big commitment. But I am very intrigued with how to develop the ability to anticipate the correct answer-choice for a question like this one before jumping into the answer-choices!

Anticipation and paraphrasing is a skill I am still developing, it is not as easy as, say, identify the flaw/error in reasoning, or parallel logic. I did not think however that it would apply in this case. In this case, I felt as though I should break down the arguments, keep an open mind, stay flexible, and aggressively prosecute the answer-choices.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Thank You Adam
Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

Regarding your concern that the distance cars can travel does actually matter, let me clarify: it matters, but only because that supports the claim that they would increase the demand for electricity. This is presented by Umit as a fact, and typically the LSAT doesn't look to weaken arguments by denying facts. That's why it would be incorrect to expect an answer to attempt to counter that fact. In the real world we might do that, perhaps by saying "your data is incorrect - the typical range for electric vehicles is now much longer than it used to be, so they don't recharge all that often." But on the LSAT we aren't expected to analyze and respond to the facts as much as we are supposed to deal with the reasoning. In this case, it would be better to prephrase something that says "sure, Umit, you're right about that, but here's why that doesn't matter." That way, we are looking for a counter that weakens the reasoning in the opposing argument, showing that it is not a strong response.

When I went to prephrase this, I thought about the two opposing positions:

Henry: Electric vehicles would create less urban pollution
Umit: Electric cars would create more pollution

I noticed that Henry's claim was limited to urban pollution, while Umit's was broader, so my prephrase was "Henry needs to say that the additional pollution won't be urban."

I'm not sure what you meant about a technical skill here, but prephrasing is determining what the answer needs to do, or say, or contain, before looking at any answer choices. You should do this with every LR questions, no exceptions! Always think about what is needed to answer the question, so that when you come across an answer choice that does that, you will immediately recognize that it is correct. To practice this, imagine that there are no answer choices, and that the test requires you to write short answers of your own rather than selecting from a list of options. Only after you have crafted your own short answer should you look at the options, at which point you will just be picking the answer that is the best match for what you already know to be correct.

[mab9178]

Adam,

Duly noted! Two things: First, the LSAT rarely attacks arguments by denying facts, instead I should focus on the reasoning; and second, when it comes to LR sections, always formulate an answer, and always do so before reading the questions, no exceptions.

Will do.

Thank You Adam
Mazen