Is is possible LSAC is wrong???

[contrarian]

What makes you think Powerscore is a definitive source?  They are wrong a lot.  In fact, they do not try to be 100% correct.  That is not their goal.  Their goal is to provide tricks and gimmicks (such as the ladder) to help most students most of the time.  They know it is not 100% accurate.  They do not care.  They are trying to create something simple that will work most of the time.  Their perspective is that their students are not smart enough to understand the actual logic behind the exam so they have to find a way for them to game their way through the exam. 

Another good example is a fight we have on these boards all the time about "most strongly supported" questions.  Powerscore puts them in the "must be true" category.  Yet, the correct response (as credited by LSAC) is always a response option that does not have to be true.  I remember a big fight with a poster about a year ago(?) in which she insisted LSAC got a question wrong because their credited response for a "strongly supported" question did not have to be true.  She insisted the credited response must be wrong because Powerscore said that correct responses to these questions must be true. 

In the end, if it comes down to a difference between what Powerscore says and what LSAC says, you are better off going with LSAC.  Powerscore is not the definitive source and they do have many things in their books that are not completely true just because they are trying to simplify things for the dolts.  LSAC is the only definitive source. 

Am I wrong, or is this reasoning just a little bit circular?  The answer must be correct because the LSAC says it's correct and the LSAC is always correct because they get all the answers right.

[LSAT All Star]

What makes you think Powerscore is a definitive source?  They are wrong a lot.  In fact, they do not try to be 100% correct.  That is not their goal.  Their goal is to provide tricks and gimmicks (such as the ladder) to help most students most of the time.  They know it is not 100% accurate.  They do not care.  They are trying to create something simple that will work most of the time.  Their perspective is that their students are not smart enough to understand the actual logic behind the exam so they have to find a way for them to game their way through the exam. 

Another good example is a fight we have on these boards all the time about "most strongly supported" questions.  Powerscore puts them in the "must be true" category.  Yet, the correct response (as credited by LSAC) is always a response option that does not have to be true.  I remember a big fight with a poster about a year ago(?) in which she insisted LSAC got a question wrong because their credited response for a "strongly supported" question did not have to be true.  She insisted the credited response must be wrong because Powerscore said that correct responses to these questions must be true. 

In the end, if it comes down to a difference between what Powerscore says and what LSAC says, you are better off going with LSAC.  Powerscore is not the definitive source and they do have many things in their books that are not completely true just because they are trying to simplify things for the dolts.  LSAC is the only definitive source. 

Am I wrong, or is this reasoning just a little bit circular?  The answer must be correct because the LSAC says it's correct and the LSAC is always correct because they get all the answers right.

No.  There are two different definitions for the word "correct."  One is a logically accurate response.  The other is the credited response.  You are using them interchangeably. 

[contrarian]

Am I wrong, or is this reasoning just a little bit circular?  The answer must be correct because the LSAC says it's correct and the LSAC is always correct because they get all the answers right.

No.  There are two different definitions for the word "correct."  One is a logically accurate response.  The other is the credited response.  You are using them interchangeably. 

Uh, yeah.  I may have used a word with multiple meanings, but your reasoning is still circular. 

[LSAT All Star]

Am I wrong, or is this reasoning just a little bit circular?  The answer must be correct because the LSAC says it's correct and the LSAC is always correct because they get all the answers right.

No.  There are two different definitions for the word "correct."  One is a logically accurate response.  The other is the credited response.  You are using them interchangeably. 

Uh, yeah.  I may have used a word with multiple meanings, but your reasoning is still circular. 

You're still wrong.  I did not write anything about an answer being correct because LSAC says it is correct.  I wrote about an answer being correct because it accurately answers the question asked.  I also never concluded that LSAC is always correct.  But, if you read a claim and make up your own interpretation of the premises, skip another premise and then make up your own conclusion, I guess you can pretend an argument is circular.   

[EarlCat]

I'd say you are right, if all you're looking at is "most."  The last line, I think, is intended to limit the scope of "most" to "most but not all," with "rarely" meaning the set has *some* members.

TITCR.  There was no mistake on the part of LSAC or Powerscore.

Just for argument's sake, let's define "most" narrowly.  Let's say it means "75%."  If all artists are less insightful, it is still true that 75% of them are less insightful.  (Notice I didn't say "only 75%," nor did the stimulus say "only most")  Literally, "most" means "more than 50%," but the same analysis holds true.  If all are X, then more than 50% are X.  "Most," therefore, does not preclude "all."

Gonzolaw nailed this one.  The last sentence says, "artistic talen [sic] and political insight are rarely found together," that is they are found together rarely.  It must be, then, that some artists (in those "rare[]" instances) are not lacking in insight.  Lacking compared to whom?  Compared to their non-artist counterparts.  Put-it-all-together-and-what-do-ya-got?  "Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."

But the sentence "artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together," even if it does suggest that they are, in fact, sometimes found together, says nothing about the LEVEL of political insight relative to well-educated non-artists.  So while some artists may have political insight, we cannot assume that they have "no less political insight" than well educated non-artists.

The typical argument here is to say that this analysis is deeper than any thinking required by the LSAT, and if you can think this deeply, you can also determine that the other four answers are categorically incorrect and that this is therefore the "best" answer.  It's true, but it's also kindof a cop-out. 

The last sentence begins with "Indeed" which is used to indicate the author intends to reinforce or clarify what has already been said.  It signals that this sentence is intended to interact with the previous one, i.e. to define the scope of "most."  The author could have written, "Indeed, . . . artistic talent and political insight are never found together," refining "most" into "all."  But they didn't.  They said "Indeed, . . . artistic talen[t] and political insight are rarely found together," refining the "most" into "most but not all."

Also, do not forget the first sentence, "There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues."  So there is a point in looking to artists for insight, however little.  (Think Dumb & Dumber--"So there IS a chance!)  But if you were guaranteed to find greater insight from non artists, there would be no point in looking to artists.