Law School Discussion

PT 59/Section 2/Question 22

PT 59/Section 2/Question 22
« on: June 04, 2010, 05:34:20 PM »
 Here's the second of three question ... I just wrote it out on my notepad and tried to tackle it on my own and got nowhere so here is to posting here and hoping someone might help me ...

my concern relates to PT 59/Section 2/Question22 ... so here it is ... How do you determine which a.c. is more qualified to strengthen the conclusion when both of the a.c's can be equally weakened?

For example, assume 22 C) is true ... During the month before the study, workers at Plant A and Plant B were equally productive ... This does not necessarily strengthened the argument because you can still state "O'k, I'll grant you that the month prior to the study workers at Plant A and Plant B were equally productive. However, though the workers at Plant B did not receive a free nutritious breakfast during the study, they nevertheless eat a nutritious breakfast” thereby creating a scenario where 22 C) actually weakens the study

1)Workers at Plant B were as equally productive as workers at Plant A a month before the study

2)Workers at Plant B eat a nutritious breakfast whereas their counterparts receive(and presumably eat) a free nutritious breakfast

3)When workers eat a nutritious breakfast, workers become more productive

4)Yet  Workers at Plant A increased their productivity during the month whereas the productivity for workers at Plant B remained the same during that month, even though both eat a nutritious breakfast

Now let’s attack A) with the same gusto …

Let’s assume A) is true … ostensibly, if A is true it should strengthen the argument … so it’s an undeniable fact that few workers in Plant B consumed nutritious breakfasts during the month of the study … yet I could make the case that in some cases A) is irrelevant, and hence does not strengthen the argument just like I made the case that in some scenarios  22 C) does not only not strengthen the argument, but can actually weaken it …

So in what scenarios is A) irrelevant … what about if the workers in Plant B were already as productive as they could be … that they have already reached their ceiling respective to their potential productivity … in this scenario whether a few or a lot of workers for Plant B consumed a nutritious breakfast would not matter because the breakfast would not be able to change the fact that the workers at Plant B had already maxed out their potential productivity … 

So there … I said what I needed to say … Honestly, when I hit the a.c.’s I was looking for something that confirmed that workers at Plant A had not only received a nutritious breakfast but that they actually eat it … after I had read A-E and didn’t find what I was looking for, I settled on A) and C) is my two best answer choices … so,  if someone can explain to me why they picked A) over C) while taking into account what I have mentioned I would greatly appreciate it : )  … 

Re: PT 59/Section 2/Question 22
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2010, 04:49:10 PM »
For anyone interested in this write-up, there's a discussion of this here:
Noah Teitelbaum
Atlas LSAT Teacher & Director