Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: what is the flaw in this stimulus?  (Read 957 times)

nooyyllib

  • Guest
what is the flaw in this stimulus?
« on: September 06, 2009, 09:59:37 PM »
Only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice.  Therefore, some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.

seems like the flaw is confusion of "minority"

and how does this flaw match with

(A)   Most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic prizes.  Thus, some of those who want to win prestigious academic prizes are not scholars

thanks

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: what is the flaw in this stimulus?
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2009, 01:05:50 AM »
Only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice.  Therefore, some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.

seems like the flaw is confusion of "minority"

and how does this flaw match with

(A)   Most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic prizes.  Thus, some of those who want to win prestigious academic prizes are not scholars

thanks

In the stimulus, they're ignoring the possibility that ALL who have a sense of social justice engage in political action.  Similarly, in (A), they're ignoring the possibility that ALL of those who want to win prestigious academic prizes are scholars.

ssilver0210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
    • Silverman Bar Preparation
    • Email
Re: what is the flaw in this stimulus?
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2009, 01:06:37 AM »
We're told that only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice. Sometimes it is easier to understand with numbers.

Let's say there are ten people in a room. Two out of the ten engage in political action out of a sense of social justice, and the other eight engage in political action for some reason other than out of a sense of social justice. In this case we know that people who do not have a sense of justice engage in political action (8 of the 10), and we know that people who have a sense of social justice engage in political action (2 out of the 10), but we do not know that some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action. We simply do not have enough information to make that conclusion; it might be the case that the only two people in the world who have a sense of social justice are in that room, and both of them do engage in political action. So, the fact that, as it states in the stimulus, only a minority of people who have sense of social justice engages in political action, does not mean that some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.

Similarly, we're told that most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic awards.

Again, let's take 10 scholars in a room. This time, 8 of the ten are not motivated to win a prestigious academic award. This means that we know for a fact that some of the scholars (2 out of 10) are motivated by a desire to win a prestigious academic award. We also know that most scholars (8 out of 10) are not motivated to win a prestigious academic award.  We do not know, however, that any non-scholars are motivated to win a prestigious academic award. It might be the case, that the only people in the world who are motivated to win a prestigious academic award are the eight scholars already mentioned.

The flaws are the same because they draw conclusions based on insufficient information.
I provide tutoring both for the LSAT and the MBE at very reasonable rates.  I provide a free hour to all students to try out the tutoring.  Feel free to contact me at silvermanbarprep@gmail.com for tutoring inquires or to set up a free lesson. Visit my blog @ http://www.mbetutorial.blogspot.com

River

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: what is the flaw in this stimulus?
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2009, 01:53:58 PM »
Only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice.
=SSJ-----minority of those engaging in political action

therefore some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.
=some people (with SSJ)-----~engaging political action

Here we can not justify the conclusion from the premise(enaging vs. not engaging)


(A)   Most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic prizes. 
=Most scholars--- ~motivated/ac
contra:motivated/ac----some scholars

Thus, some of those who want to win prestigious academic prizes are not scholars
=some/ac---~not scholars

same as above(some scholars vs. none of the scholars): NOT JUSTFIABLE!!!


onthecusp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: what is the flaw in this stimulus?
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2009, 03:01:51 PM »
Only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice.  Therefore, some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.

seems like the flaw is confusion of "minority"

and how does this flaw match with

(A)   Most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic prizes.  Thus, some of those who want to win prestigious academic prizes are not scholars

thanks

Both of them do this...

Premise: A(Engage in Political Action)some B(sense of social justice)
Conclusion:  B(sense of social justice)some A-(do not engage)

You can never make any valid conclusion with two "some" statements. 

Answer choice A follows this to the "T".

S some NMBA
NMBA some S-  (Not motivated by awards-----some not scholars)