Law School Discussion

PT 37, Section 4, Question tres

PT 37, Section 4, Question tres
« on: September 27, 2008, 09:16:24 PM »
Okay, I have missed this question 29808902 times. The teacher who likes to mess with his students by telling one class that painting a is famous and painting b is not, telling the next class that painting a is ... you got it.

Okay, so now why is answer D better than answer E. I always pick E. This is my reasoning:

D -- it is possible that some students are affected by what the teacher says, but not necessarily so. Really, it is just as possible that the students in the two classes have different opinions on what is the better piece of art. Nothing in the stimulus convincingly suggests to me that any student was affected by what the teacher said. And! If I am to believe PS, in these must be true-esque questions, the answer should be supported by the stimulus. Period.

E -- I pick this because I know this -- between the two classes, roughly equal numbers of students said that they preferred one painting over the other. Thus, students as a whole group probably judging them on average, equal in artistic worth, since, as a whole, they preferred both paintings equally.

Now, I see that I'm making a jump between artistic worth and general preference. Maybe the students thought neither of the paintings had artistic worth, one just smelled better than another. Who knows, who cares? But, I still don't see how E is any weaker of an answer than D, since I need to stretch just as much to presume that even ONE student was affected by what the teacher said.

Help. Thanks!

Re: PT 37, Section 4, Question tres
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2008, 09:22:43 PM »
On a related note, am I not allowed to hypothesize anything from a stimulus except logically inferred conditional/causal statements? Is such hypothesizing generally frowned upon in LSAT land, because if so, then I can accept E as the lesser answer.