Q5 - The design of Japanese gardens

[Laura Damone]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
"depends on assuming" = Necessary Assumption

Break down the Stimulus:
What's this argument trying to prove? That rocks chosen for Japanese gardens should vary widely in appearance. How do we know? The word "hence" introduces our conclusion . "Hence" also tells us that the statement which comes before it is evidence supporting the statement that follows it. This clues us in to the fact that the fist line, that Japanese Gardens should display harmony with nature, is the first premise. The second premise can be tricky to spot because it is contained in the same sentence as the conclusion, but if you note the keyword "since," you can see that the last half of the final sentence, which tells us that rocks found in nature also vary widely in appearance, is offered as evidence supporting the first half.

Any prephrase?
Looking for a new concept in the conclusion is a great way to spot the gap in Assumption questions, but here, both concepts are addressed: 1 in each premise. Because this argument is conditional, we could think of splitting the conclusion and building inward with the premises to figure out where the gap is. That would look like this:

Rocks for J.Gardens --> Display Harmony w. Nature (____________) Rocks in Nature --> Vary Widely in Appearance.

Looking at it this way, we can see that there is a big hole in the argument, denoted by the parentheses: this argument assumes that to be in harmony with nature the rocks must mimic nature.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
A) "Every" is a red flag in Necessary Assumption questions. They seldom have such an extreme degree. What's more, the other key values besides harmony with nature are out of scope.

B) Corrrect! A match for our prephrase. Note the difference in degree between this answer choice, which uses "helps" rather than something more extreme, such as "requires," and answer choice A.

C) This is a classic Necessary Assumption trap answer. In order for it to be true that a criteria for choosing rocks for Japanese Gardens is harmony with nature, we don't need to assume that the only criteria for choosing rocks for Japanese Gardens is harmony with nature. Note also that this has an extreme degree, and is a premise booster, just upping the degree of premise #1.

D) This is a very tempting answer choice because it expresses one possible prephrase: that this argument equivocates (LSAT word!) being in harmony with nature and being as it appears in nature. But answer choice (D) displays a subtle difference: it uses "natural" rather than "as it appears in nature," and that's problematic, because "natural" doesn't have a concrete enough meaning. If you've ever seen "All Natural American Cheese" you know this to be true!

E) In order to conclude that the rocks must be varied, we don't need to assume that each element must be varied.

Takeaway/Pattern: 1. If there's no new concept in the conclusion of an Assumption Question, split the conclusion and build inward to spot the gap, and beware extreme degree in Necessary Assumption answer choices!

#officialexplanation

[lihanxiao1991]

I narrowed down to A & B, but don't know why B is better, can anyone explain? thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

A couple things might help you narrow it down on Necessary Assumption questions:

1. Know that extreme language is VERY dangerous on these questions.

So you should ask yourself, which is a safer claim: (A) or (B)?

(A) says that rock selection should reflect every key value.

(B) says that imitation of nature helps to achieve harmony.

(B) is softer wording, and thus a much more likely answer for Necessary Assumption (you're not allowed to go overboard with Necessary Assumption answer choices -- make sure you understand the distinction between Necessary and Sufficient assumptions).

2. The other thing you should be looking for in a Necessary Assumption answer choice is that it either
- Links together two ideas from the Argument Core (normally it links an idea from the premise to an idea from the conclusion)
- Rules out a potential objection

(A) is not doing either of those things. The argument did discuss rock selection, but it didn't discuss "every key value embodied in Japanese garden design". It only discussed one key value: displaying harmony with nature.

(B) is making a link between the premises and the conclusion. "Imitating nature" was discussed in the 2nd sentence, and "harmony with nature" was discussed in the 1st sentence.

3. Remember to consider the Negation Test for Necessary Assumption questions.

The correct answer, if negated, will RUIN the argument. The incorrect answers, when negated, still allow the argument to work.

If you negated (B), it would ruin the argument.

negated-(B): in terms of rock selection, imitating nature does not help to achieve harmony.

Well, if that were true, then selecting rocks that "vary in appearance" (our conclusion) would NOT fulfill the goal of "harmony with nature" (our premise).

Meanwhile, negating (A) does not ruin the argument.

negated-(A): rock selection does NOT need to reflect every key value embodied in Japanese garden design.

That's fine. This author didn't say rock selection needed to reflect EVERY value. The author was only suggesting that rock selection should reflect the value of 'displaying harmony with nature'.

So again, 3 things to consider when dealing with a "down to 2" on Necessary Assumption:

1. Does either answer contain extreme wording (more extreme than anything you can match it up with in the argument)?

2. Does either answer successfully link two ideas in the argument or rule out a potential objection?

3. If I negate one of the answer choices, does it RUIN the argument (the way the correct answer should)?

Hope this helps.

[ttunden]

what about E.

I was between B and E.

B is better since its weak and connects two ideas. Address gap of harmony with nature and being accurate ie accurate representation of what it would be in nature( the rocks )

E looks ok but I thought it was too strong. I negated it and got " each component of a genuine Japanese garden is NOT varied"

thats where I got confused.

Can anyone critique my negation and see if I did it wrong? only thing I can think of, is that E is too strong. Is that all there is to eliminating E?

Thanks

[gaheexlee]

what about E.

I was between B and E.

B is better since its weak and connects two ideas. Address gap of harmony with nature and being accurate ie accurate representation of what it would be in nature( the rocks )

E looks ok but I thought it was too strong. I negated it and got " each component of a genuine Japanese garden is NOT varied"

thats where I got confused.

Can anyone critique my negation and see if I did it wrong? only thing I can think of, is that E is too strong. Is that all there is to eliminating E?

Thanks

Don't know if you're still looking for an answer to your question but I believe the correct way to negate (E) is actually: Not each component of a genuine Japanese garden is varied.

Just as you would negate a phrase that says "I sometimes go to the gym on days that rain" by saying instead "I never go to the gym on days that rain," and not by saying "I sometimes go to the gym on days that do not rain" you want to focus on the modifier (I don't know if these are called that, but I think you get what I mean?).

So if you negate (E) correctly, you'll see that the negation does not affect the argument: "Not every component of a genuine Japanese garden is varied." "Not every" leaves room for interpretation.

But really, you could have eliminated (E) because it is much too broad in scope. The stimulus talks only about rock placement and how that relates with the display of harmony. (E) seems inclusive of other elements like flowers, fountains, ponds, pavilions, etc.

[CharlesS800]

I flagged this questions while taking a practice test. I was originally struggling to choose between A & B as answers but upon review I was more confident in my selection of answer B. I began this problem by diagramming what I saw to be the argument. I ultimately settled on

Japanese gardens display harmony with nature + Rocks in nature appearance's vary widely ---> Rocks should also vary in appearance

From here, it seemed to me that the gap in this argument was a term shift, moving from "harmony in nature" in the first part of the argument immediately to rocks needing to vary widely in appearance. Prephrasing, I guessed that the assumption would address this change.

After reading answer A, I eliminated it because asking the gardens to reflect "every key value" of Japanese gardens seemed like going to far for this argument. I kept answer B because it did seem to address the gap that I prephrased. I eliminated answer C because of the second word - only. There was nothing in the argument that noted that this should be the only factor. I eliminated answer D because its reference to "natural" seemed out of scope. I eliminated answer E because it addressed "each" component of the garden - this too seemed like a step to far and out of the argument's scope.