Subscription pricing
I suppose the title is self-explanatory, but I ran across a question in particular (LSAT 58, Section 4, Question 21) regarding lottery winners and television viewers. I ALMOST selected "D" but felt it was just too close to the conclusion to be the right answer. Essentially, I figured the answer choice was just restating the conclusion. As a result, I went with "B" even though I had reservations (this alone should have prevented me from selecting "B").
So down to it: will an Assumption Question answer choice ever feature a restating of the conclusion or premise? Or will the seemingly like sentence simply be a minute assumption that demands a more detailed eye? Hope this question makes sense, and I look forward to anyone's help!
0
3 comments
Each of you helped in answering my question. Thanks!
Theoretically, the conclusion is both a necessary and a sufficient assumption for itself. So if you have a question that asks for a necessary or sufficient assumption of the CONCLUSION, then yes, an answer that restates the conclusion would be correct. However, almost always, if not always, the question is to find an assumption of the argument, not merely the conclusion. This means the answer will address the relation between the premise(s) and the conclusion. This is easy to see with sufficient assumption questions that "bridge the gap" between the premise and conclusion--if there is a shift in term, the answer might equate the two different terms, for example. But for necessary assumption questions, it can be at times a bit more difficult to evaluate. Still, you are looking for something that partially bridges the gap, or strengthens the argument, and that, if the opposite were true, you would have trouble seeing how the argument would ever make any sense or work. Drilling a bunch of necessary assumption questions should help illuminate exactly what your task is on these questions.
Premise 1: Most people have at least some awareness of the events that are extensively covered by the media.
Premise 2: The media extensively covers the few people that win the lottery.
Conclusion: It's likely that many people over-estimate their chances of winning a major jackpot.
There's a pretty big gap between the premises and the conclusion; namely, does having at least some awareness of the few people that win the lottery make people over-estitmate their chances of winning? We can conclude from the premises the most people have some awareness of the few people that win the lottery, but we have no idea what kind of impact that knowledge has their beliefs about the lottery itself.
Answer choice D addresses the gap in the argument: at least some folks incorrectly estimate their odds when they learn about someone else winning. If we negate the answer and learn that nobody overestimates their chances because of this, the argument falls apart. This is sign of a necessary assumption, and we can be pretty confident in our answer.
Not exactly sure if I've answered your question. D addresses the gap in the argument, and certainly revolves around the stimulus, but I don't think it's restating the conclusion.