User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 3 times.
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

shaynfernandez wrote:I chose D, because D shows that the conclusion about popularity shouldn't be drawn based on a comparison of a "dissimilar event" such as Merch sales.

But the argument states that the comparison of merchandise sales is made to "similar" events.

So the concert promoter concludes that the concert series has popular appeal. Why? Because it's sales of merchandise are just as high as other similar concert series. So does that prove that the concert series has popular appeal? Maybe, but it depends on how popular the concert series is that the promoter is using as a comparison.

Let's try a simpler example. Suppose I tell you that my house is expensive. And the evidence I give is that it costs as much as my neighbor's house. If my neighbor's house is not expensive, then it wouldn't be fair to conclude that my house is expensive. On the other hand, if my neighbor's house is expensive, then the comparison does show that my house is expensive as well.

Back to the argument, the promoter is assuming that the concert series the promoter uses in his/her comparison is popular. Just like I was assuming that my neighbor's house was expensive. And this assumption is perfectly stated in answer choice (C).

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) does not occur in the argument. There is no emotional attack of the critics, but rather an insufficient attempt to show that they are wrong.
(B) is too strong. The argument never assumes that merchandise sales is the "sole" indicator of popular appeal.
(D) is close, but the argument is careful to specify that the compared events are indeed "similar."
(E) is irrelevant, since the conclusion is not about any one particular concert within the series, but rather about the concert series as a whole.

Hope that helps!


#officialexplanation
 
r1r200
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 9
Joined: October 14th, 2009
 
 
 

Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by r1r200 Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:51 pm

Can you please explain why its not B? Thanks
User avatar
 
bbirdwell
Thanks Received: 806
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 807
Joined: April 16th, 2009
 
This post thanked 4 times.
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by bbirdwell Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:57 pm

The reasoning in the argument depends on sales being a valid indicator, but not the "sole" indicator. It's fine for there to be others -- the author has merely chosen to use sales.
I host free online workshop/Q&A sessions called Zen and the Art of LSAT. You can find upcoming dates here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm
 
shaynfernandez
Thanks Received: 2
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 91
Joined: July 14th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by shaynfernandez Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:12 am

I chose D, because D shows that the conclusion about popularity shouldn't be drawn based on a comparison of a "dissimilar event" such as Merch sales.

Any help in understanding why C is correct and why D is incorrect would be GREAT
 
austindyoung
Thanks Received: 21
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 79
Joined: July 05th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by austindyoung Thu May 16, 2013 1:26 pm

I got this one correct, but was down between (B) and (C). I think (B) is tempting if we're treating this as we would a causal claim on the LSAT, where the author concludes causality-- at least according to the Powerscore LR book when the author assumes causality they assume that it is *the only* cause.

This isn't a causal claim, so maybe that's where confusion comes in. If anyone disagrees, I always defer to what the MLSAT LR book says if there is ever a contention between the two (or defer to the method that gets you the best results).

This is just for anyone who maybe had that section of the PS Bible in mind when doing this. I did, which was the only reason I had (B) as a contender.

Actually, if any Geeks want to comment on this, that'd be great!
 
mharr
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 28
Joined: January 07th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by mharr Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:08 pm

Would someone mind explaining why answer choice C is correct? I understand why the other answer choices are wrong. I answered this question correctly on blind review only because I did process of elimination.
 
mharr
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 28
Joined: January 07th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by mharr Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:17 pm

Nevermind my question, I think I just figured it out. The concert promoter compared the sales in his/her concert series to the sales of comparable series and concludes that his/her concert series does not lack popular appeal because its sales are equal to or greater than the sales of other comparable concert series. Well, what if those comparable concert series lack popular appeal as well? Answer choice C addresses this flaw.
 
nikamon
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: August 27th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by nikamon Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:08 pm

Great explanations everyone! What question type is this?
 
maria487
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 39
Joined: October 26th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by maria487 Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:09 pm

I was confident in B. In general, if the LSAT claims that X --> Y, then does that not mean that the argument is assuming Y could have resulted only from X? That is why I thought B is correct.

Because our income is high (because X), our concert series does not lack popular appeal (then Y). From this argument, why can't we assume that the argument considers X to be the only relevant factor in concluding Y?
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 2811
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by ohthatpatrick Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:34 pm

You said:
"I was confident in B. In general, if the LSAT claims that X --> Y, then does that not mean that the argument is assuming Y could have resulted only from X?"

It does not mean that.

If you play in the NBA, then you make more than $100k / year
NBA --> make $100k+
X -------> Y

Does that statement assume that "making more than $100k/ year can only result from playing in the NBA"?

Of course not. I'm not sure where people got this "if X causes Y, then X is the ONLY thing that causes Y."

Jumping off a tall building will kill you. Am I claiming that ONLY jumping off a tall building will kill you? No.

When you say, "Y could have resulted only from X", that conditionally looks like
Y --> X

"only" indicates a necessary idea. Necessary ideas go on the right.

You said:
"Because our income is high (because X), our concert series does not lack popular appeal (then Y). From this argument, why can't we assume that the argument considers X to be the only relevant factor in concluding Y?"

We can say that the argument considers X to be sufficient to conclude Y.
That looks like
(prem) X --> (conc) Y

Bob was able to read me three pages from "Catcher in the Rye". Thus, Bob must be able to read English.

Do I think that "reading three pages from Catcher in the Rye" is the only relevant way to just someone's English literacy?

No ... it's just ONE relevant way that I happened to use as my evidence.

Is that argument flawed because I ...
(B) take for granted that reading three pages from "Catcher in the Rye" is the sole indicator of being able to read English?

No, it's just an indicator, according to the logic of my argument.

Remember that "takes for granted" = Necessary Assumption.
Remember that for Necessary Assumption, you can't go overboard with strong language.
Remember that for something to be a Necessary Assumption, negating it should badly hurt the argument.

(B) has two strikes against it.
1. "sole" = "only" = extreme. It's the only indicator mentioned, but that doesn't mean that the author assumed that merch sales are the ONLY way to measure popular appeal.

2. If you negate (B) and say, "there are other indicators of popular appeal", how have you hurt the argument? How has that given you a way to counter the conclusion and argue that the concert series did NOT have popular appeal?

You can't make a valid objection by saying, "Your concert series didn't have popular appeal. After all, you could have ALSO measured its popular appeal by looking at the size of the audience."

Meanwhile, if you negate (C), you DO get an objection.
"Your concert series didn't have popular appeal. After all, the concert series you're comparing it to (and equating it with) DID NOT possess popular appeal."

Hope this helps.
 
janetT279
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 4
Joined: October 05th, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

by janetT279 Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:51 am

I picked B, but I think I figure it out now:

What B says is:
popular appeal → memorabilia sales

However, what the promoter says is:
memorabilia sales equal or higher than similar sales at comparable series → popular appeal

I do think it is a tricky question because there are 2 mistakes, one is demonstrated in C, the other one is the gap between popular appeal and memorabilia sales. I noticed the second one immediately and chose B without thinking the possibility that there may exist other mistakes.