#24 - Journalist: Can you give me a summary of the novel

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, co659, while you might be right in the real world (saying I cannot reach the top shelf doesn't mean I never will be able to), the world of the LSAT is a little different. It looks a lot like ours, but it's twisted, and maybe a little sick and evil, like a clown seen in a funhouse mirror in a horror movie. Okay, maybe not that bad, but still different and twisted.

On the LSAT, if you see a claim that something cannot happen, you can interpret that as meaning it can NEVER happen. It's impossible. They can hedge on that if they say something like "it cannot be done at this time" or "it cannot be accomplished using current technology", and those allow for the possibility of some change in the future, such as new technology being developed. If they don't hedge, then you can take it to the bank as an absolute statement - it cannot be done.

Here, we have a snobby, arrogant, condescending novelist who is telling us that he simply cannot do what he has been asked to do. It's impossible, and it not only cannot be done right now but can never, ever be done. Then he sniffs, turns back to thoughtfully sipping his organic fair trade vegan green tea matcha, smooths down his man-bun, and ignores you for the rest of your life. He cannot be bothered with you. He never will bother with you. Good day, sir. I said Good Day!

This difference between the real world, where common sense prevails, and the LSAT world, where only logic does, is crucial, and adapting to the new rules for the LSAT is going to be a critical part of your development with the test. Think about the crazy rules for causal reasoning, where in the real world we would accept that any given effect can have multiple causes (my cough can be caused by a cold, or an allergy, or some debris in my throat), but on the LSAT the author can be treated as if he believes there is only ever one cause for any effect (if a cough is caused by a cold then it must not be caused by an allergy; suggesting an allergy weakens the claim that a cold might be the cause).

Good luck on your trip through the funhouse that is the LSAT! Try not to lose your bearings!

[ilovemydog]

I got rid of C and E because of the "some" in both answer choices. It didn't match with what the stimulus was trying to articulate.

Is this something that I can (or should/not) do?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi ilovemydog,
I think you have used more than just the word "some" to get rid of those answer choices, because the "some" is a little different in each one. Also, the stimulus is referring to "I" which is one person, and would technically count as "some" (at least one).
In C the "some" refers to the similarities between the things being compared. In D the "some" refers to an additional variable that is not in the stimulus.
So, yes both of those "some" references (with context) will discount them from consideration, but not for a single reason. So I can't say that it will always be the case that focusing only on "some" will lead you to the correct answer.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[deck1134]

Hi powerscore staff,


Could you provide any additional explanation for what "double the conclusion" is? I have the Bible series, and took the course, and cannot find that anywhere. I noted that in the Lesson 8 Homework you discuss paralleling the conclusion, and if this is the same, I would appreciate a discussion of this as well.

Thank you!
-Deck

[Adam Tyson]

That's exactly what it is, deck! Doubling the conclusion is paralleling the conclusion, and we use those terms interchangeably in some of our materials such as our full length course books. Doubling the conclusion is a way of testing answers to a Parallel Reasoning question. If the conclusion in the stimulus is "therefore, it is likely to rain either Tuesday or Wednesday", we would look for a conclusion that declares something is likely or probable, and eliminate answers whose conclusions indicate certainty that something will occur, or the mere possibility of something occurring, or an opinion about whether something should or should not occur. None of those answer choices would match the strength of the conclusion we sought to parallel. Ideally, we would want a conclusion that has the same degree of likelihood and also has that either/or element to it, but since we are only required to find the best answer, rather than a perfect one, we could forego that latter element if everything else in the answer was a match and was better than the other four. The degree of certainty would be a crucial factor and would have to match.