Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: june 2008 lsat LR question  (Read 1144 times)

llsatt1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
    • Email
june 2008 lsat LR question
« on: December 03, 2009, 09:29:15 PM »
Section 2

18.  Columnist:  Taking a strong position on an issue makes one likely to misinterpret or ignore additional evidence that conflicts with one's stand.  But in order to understand an issue fully, it is essential to consider such evidence impartially.  Thus, it is best not to take a strong position on an issue unless one has already considered all important evidence conflicting with that position.

The columnist's reasoning most closely conforrms to which one of the following principles?

Answer:  Anyone who does not understand an issue fully should avoid taking a strong position on it.


River

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: june 2008 lsat LR question
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2009, 09:26:04 AM »
But in order to understand an issue fully, it is essential to consider such evidence impartially. 
=Understand issue fully----evidence impartially: contra

Thus, it is best not to take a strong position on an issue unless one has already considered all important evidence conflicting with that position.
=Take a strong position----all evidence: contra

:Anyone who does not understand an issue fully should avoid taking a strong position on it.

 

llsatt1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: june 2008 lsat LR question
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2009, 07:15:13 PM »
But in order to understand an issue fully, it is essential to consider such evidence impartially. 
=Understand issue fully----evidence impartially: contra

Thus, it is best not to take a strong position on an issue unless one has already considered all important evidence conflicting with that position.
=Take a strong position----all evidence: contra

:Anyone who does not understand an issue fully should avoid taking a strong position on it.

 

I still think there's a gap there, which is where the answer choice/assumption comes in to play:

1.  Understand issue fully -> consider all evidence impartially (that conflicts with your view)

2.  conclusion:  Take a strong position --> consider all evidence that conflicts with your view



#1 does not link to the conclusion without an assumption, which is the answer choice:

answer:  anyone who does not understand the issue fully should avoid taking a strong position.


I'm confused with the wording of the question in that the reasoning conforms to the answer choice.  I think it is really an assumption on which the conclusion depends.