Do not worry if you have never heard of a flavonoid. The question does not
depend on your knowledge, or lack thereof, of flavonoids.
Remember, you can often predict the occurrence of Must Be True questions
because the stimulus of most Must Be True questions does not contain a
conclusion.
When you read an argument, you are forced to evaluate the validity of a
conclusive statement generated by a framework designed to be persuasive (that
is, after all, what argumentation is all about). When judging an argument,
people tend to react with agreement or disagreement depending on the
persuasiveness of the conclusion. Fact sets do not engender that same level of
response because no argument is present, and, as mentioned in Chapter Two,
many Must Be True stimuli are fact sets. Because prephrasing relies in part on
your reaction to what you read, prephrasing Must Be True questions can often
be difficult. There are exceptions (for example, when Sufficient and Necessary
Conditions are present, as will be discussed in Chapter Six) but if you find
yourself having difficulty prephrasing an answer to a Must Be True question, do
not worry.The following is a question from the June 1999 LSAT and will be used to
further discuss prephrasing. Please take a moment to read through the problem
and corresponding answer choices:
1. Flavonoids are a common component of almost all
plants, but a specific variety of flavonoid in apples
has been found to be an antioxidant. Antioxidants
are known to be a factor in the prevention of heart
disease.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred
from the passage?
(A) A diet composed largely of fruits and
vegetables will help to prevent heart disease.
(B) Flavonoids are essential to preventing heart
disease.
(C) Eating at least one apple each day will prevent
heart disease.
(D) At least one type of flavonoid helps to prevent
heart disease.
(E) A diet deficient in antioxidants is a common
cause of heart disease.
Applying Primary Objective #1 we can make the determination that since there
is no conclusion in the stimulus, this is a fact set and not an argument. In this
case the stimulus is short, and according to Primary Objective #2 can be broken
down into three components:
First Statement: Flavonoids are a common component of almost all plants,
Second Statement: a specific variety of flavonoid in apples has been found
to be an antioxidant.
Third Statement: Antioxidants are known to be a factor in the prevention of
heart disease.
The question stem is obviously a Must Be True, and to prephrase (Primary
Objective #6), take a moment to consider what the elements in the stimulus add
up to. To do so, consider the premises together, and look for the connection
between the elements: the first and second premises have “flavonoid” in
common, and the second and third premises have “antioxidant” in common.
Take a moment to examine each connection.
The flavonoid connection between the first two premises proves to be noninformative.
The first premise indicates flavonoids appear frequently in plants
and the second premise cites a specific instance in apples.
The antioxidant connection in the last two premises is more revealing. The
second premise indicates that a flavonoid in apples is an antioxidant, and the third premise states that antioxidants are a factor in preventing heart disease.
Adding these two points together, we can deduce that the specific flavonoid in
apples is a factor in preventing heart disease. Since that statement must be true
based on the premises, we can attack the five answer choices with this
prephrase in mind. Note that if you did not see that connection between the
premises, you would simply move on and attack each answer choice with the
facts at hand.
If you did not follow this exact pattern of analysis, or if you classified some
answers as Contenders when we classified them as Losers, do not worry.
Everyone has their own particular style and pace for attacking questions. The
more questions you complete, the better you will get at understanding
why answers are correct or incorrect.
The scope of the stimulus— especially if that scope is broad— often helps
eliminate one or more of the answer choices.
Answer choice (A): This is an interesting answer choice, and most people take
a moment before categorizing this as a Loser. The answer choice could be true,
but it is too broad to be supported by the facts: nowhere are we told that a diet
of fruits and vegetables will help prevent heart disease (and in this sense the
answer fails the Fact Test). Perhaps apples are the only fruit with the antioxidant
flavonoid and there is nothing beneficial about other fruits and vegetables. And,
eating a diet of fruits and vegetables is no guarantee that the diet includes
apples. Regardless, this answer choice can be especially attractive because it
plays on the general perception that fruits and vegetables are good for you.
Answer choice (B): This answer is also a Loser. Nothing in the stimulus
supports the rather strong statement that flavonoids are essential to preventing
heart disease.
Answer choice (C): Many people hold this answer as a Contender and then
move on to answer choice (D). As it will turn out, this answer is incorrect
because the language is too strong: the stimulus only stated that apples contain
an element that was a factor in preventing heart disease, not that they definitely
will prevent heart disease.
Answer choice (D): This answer is the closest to our prephrase, and this is the
correct answer. Notice how the language of this answer choice—“helps to
prevent”—matches the stimulus language—“factor in the prevention.”
Answer choice (E): This answer choice also could be true, but it cannot be
correct because the stimulus makes no mention of the causes of heart disease.
Just because an antioxidant can help prevent heart disease does not mean that a
lack of antioxidants causes heart disease.
Notice how the scope of the stimulus plays a role in how we attack the answer
choices. The language of the stimulus is relatively broad—“almost all,” “factor
in the prevention,”—and the author shies away from making definite statements.
Because the stimulus does not contain much in the way of direct, absolute
information, selecting an answer choice that contains a direct, absolute
statement is difficult to justify. This reasoning helps us eliminate answer choices
(B) and (C), both of which contain strong statements that are ultimately
unsupportable (literally, they both fail the Fact Test because they are too strong).
depend on your knowledge, or lack thereof, of flavonoids.
Remember, you can often predict the occurrence of Must Be True questions
because the stimulus of most Must Be True questions does not contain a
conclusion.
When you read an argument, you are forced to evaluate the validity of a
conclusive statement generated by a framework designed to be persuasive (that
is, after all, what argumentation is all about). When judging an argument,
people tend to react with agreement or disagreement depending on the
persuasiveness of the conclusion. Fact sets do not engender that same level of
response because no argument is present, and, as mentioned in Chapter Two,
many Must Be True stimuli are fact sets. Because prephrasing relies in part on
your reaction to what you read, prephrasing Must Be True questions can often
be difficult. There are exceptions (for example, when Sufficient and Necessary
Conditions are present, as will be discussed in Chapter Six) but if you find
yourself having difficulty prephrasing an answer to a Must Be True question, do
not worry.The following is a question from the June 1999 LSAT and will be used to
further discuss prephrasing. Please take a moment to read through the problem
and corresponding answer choices:
1. Flavonoids are a common component of almost all
plants, but a specific variety of flavonoid in apples
has been found to be an antioxidant. Antioxidants
are known to be a factor in the prevention of heart
disease.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred
from the passage?
(A) A diet composed largely of fruits and
vegetables will help to prevent heart disease.
(B) Flavonoids are essential to preventing heart
disease.
(C) Eating at least one apple each day will prevent
heart disease.
(D) At least one type of flavonoid helps to prevent
heart disease.
(E) A diet deficient in antioxidants is a common
cause of heart disease.
Applying Primary Objective #1 we can make the determination that since there
is no conclusion in the stimulus, this is a fact set and not an argument. In this
case the stimulus is short, and according to Primary Objective #2 can be broken
down into three components:
First Statement: Flavonoids are a common component of almost all plants,
Second Statement: a specific variety of flavonoid in apples has been found
to be an antioxidant.
Third Statement: Antioxidants are known to be a factor in the prevention of
heart disease.
The question stem is obviously a Must Be True, and to prephrase (Primary
Objective #6), take a moment to consider what the elements in the stimulus add
up to. To do so, consider the premises together, and look for the connection
between the elements: the first and second premises have “flavonoid” in
common, and the second and third premises have “antioxidant” in common.
Take a moment to examine each connection.
The flavonoid connection between the first two premises proves to be noninformative.
The first premise indicates flavonoids appear frequently in plants
and the second premise cites a specific instance in apples.
The antioxidant connection in the last two premises is more revealing. The
second premise indicates that a flavonoid in apples is an antioxidant, and the third premise states that antioxidants are a factor in preventing heart disease.
Adding these two points together, we can deduce that the specific flavonoid in
apples is a factor in preventing heart disease. Since that statement must be true
based on the premises, we can attack the five answer choices with this
prephrase in mind. Note that if you did not see that connection between the
premises, you would simply move on and attack each answer choice with the
facts at hand.
If you did not follow this exact pattern of analysis, or if you classified some
answers as Contenders when we classified them as Losers, do not worry.
Everyone has their own particular style and pace for attacking questions. The
more questions you complete, the better you will get at understanding
why answers are correct or incorrect.
The scope of the stimulus— especially if that scope is broad— often helps
eliminate one or more of the answer choices.
Answer choice (A): This is an interesting answer choice, and most people take
a moment before categorizing this as a Loser. The answer choice could be true,
but it is too broad to be supported by the facts: nowhere are we told that a diet
of fruits and vegetables will help prevent heart disease (and in this sense the
answer fails the Fact Test). Perhaps apples are the only fruit with the antioxidant
flavonoid and there is nothing beneficial about other fruits and vegetables. And,
eating a diet of fruits and vegetables is no guarantee that the diet includes
apples. Regardless, this answer choice can be especially attractive because it
plays on the general perception that fruits and vegetables are good for you.
Answer choice (B): This answer is also a Loser. Nothing in the stimulus
supports the rather strong statement that flavonoids are essential to preventing
heart disease.
Answer choice (C): Many people hold this answer as a Contender and then
move on to answer choice (D). As it will turn out, this answer is incorrect
because the language is too strong: the stimulus only stated that apples contain
an element that was a factor in preventing heart disease, not that they definitely
will prevent heart disease.
Answer choice (D): This answer is the closest to our prephrase, and this is the
correct answer. Notice how the language of this answer choice—“helps to
prevent”—matches the stimulus language—“factor in the prevention.”
Answer choice (E): This answer choice also could be true, but it cannot be
correct because the stimulus makes no mention of the causes of heart disease.
Just because an antioxidant can help prevent heart disease does not mean that a
lack of antioxidants causes heart disease.
Notice how the scope of the stimulus plays a role in how we attack the answer
choices. The language of the stimulus is relatively broad—“almost all,” “factor
in the prevention,”—and the author shies away from making definite statements.
Because the stimulus does not contain much in the way of direct, absolute
information, selecting an answer choice that contains a direct, absolute
statement is difficult to justify. This reasoning helps us eliminate answer choices
(B) and (C), both of which contain strong statements that are ultimately
unsupportable (literally, they both fail the Fact Test because they are too strong).
No comments:
Post a Comment