43 LR One Question 16
- « 43 LR One Question 15
- 848 of 3815
- 43 LR One Question 17 »
Comments
Wouldn't answer choice B also work for this, though? The author assumes that the economy will be improved, which would make sense if the economy of the area does not rely on the industries that would be harmed.
(B) isn't really an assumption; the argument has already addressed this possibility directly (saying that gov protection would help "even if [it] harms older local industries.")
Just like if I said "We should open up the economy from coronavirus restrictions, even if it kills our elderly people," and you responded with "But wait; you're just assuming that wouldn't kill elderly people!"
Make sense?
[response written in quarantine. Sigh. LSAT in the time of coronavirus]
I also came to the conclusion that answer choice B was correct.
So if the question is saying it needs an assumption it can "depend on" would I be looking for a factor that strengthens? hence not discouraging others from relocating?
Sort of!
Check out this video (and those that follow it) for more on how to understand and deal with Necessary Assumption questions.
Let me know if you need help with anything!
Even though the correctness test made it easy to get the right answer, which was great if B did look appealing, I’m trying to get a clear understanding on conditionals and language.
A couple of questions to clarify the proper way to think about this question and the conditionals "can" & "need not".
When reading structurally for language cues and meaning, this is how I read the passage:
Many (not all) people prefer to live in RNB. Such regions often (=not always/not guaranteed) experience influx, and a growing population (always) encourages businesses…….Thus, mandated ENVP can (is able to or may?) help economies even if such protections harm older local biz (only if it doesn’t hurt new biz).
Inferences drawn: OK, these regions don’t ALWAYS experience influx. But if it does new business WILL come (based on interpreting “growing population encourages business as “always” encourages business”) and they’re claiming it CAN help the region’s economy (even though I want to interpret that as may/may not so it not guaranteed to help). so if it CAN, whatever they impose can't hurt the new businesses if the old ones will hurt.
With “E”, not only did the correctness test confirm but I also saw the language association of encourage in the passage to “need not discourage”.
Q- Since we stipulate the truth of the premises, Is it OK to look at/insert as a reminder for a language strength “always” in front of a statement like “a growing population encourages business”. Doing that made me look at that statement as the most important to keep an eye out for as it was strong. So always encourage = need not discourage in my mind.
Q- Should we interpret “need not” as “cannot”? Or do we have to look at "need not" as "may not, but also may"
Correctness test allowed me to get the right answer by negating it was clear, but I want to cement the proper relationships for future use.
How should be look at “CAN” for the test, and for this question?
When looking for language cues, if can = “ is able to/has the ability to” makes me want to think about the statement differently than can = “may” (which makes me think may not). Can I make it a hard rule to ALWAYS treat “can” a certain way? Can we classify it with regard to able to do something or a likelihood? I know one of the other videos addressed something similar but have no idea where that is buried and didn’t make a note.
Thanks!
I've copied your questions and bolded my responses:
Q- Since we stipulate the truth of the premises, Is it OK to look at/insert as a reminder for a language strength “always” in front of a statement like “a growing population encourages business”. Doing that made me look at that statement as the most important to keep an eye out for as it was strong. So always encourage = need not discourage in my mind. Yes! Any unmodified claim can be correctly (and redundantly!) read with the word "all" or "always" inserted. If it's true that "well-manicured lawns increase the number of assaults in a neighborhood," then it's true: well-manicured lawns ALWAYS, ALL THE TIME increase the number of assaults in a neighborhood.
Q- Should we interpret “need not” as “cannot”? Or do we have to look at "need not" as "may not, but also may" The latter. "Need not" means "do not necessarily have to". I need not eat donuts to stay alive; I do not necessarily have to. If you need something, it's necessary. If you need it not, it isn't necessary!
How should be look at “CAN” for the test, and for this question? The normal, everyday meaning applies here as well. "Can" means that the thing is NOT impossible. If something can happen, all that means is that the thing is possible.
When looking for language cues, if can = “ is able to/has the ability to” makes me want to think about the statement differently than can = “may” (which makes me think may not). Can I make it a hard rule to ALWAYS treat “can” a certain way? Can we classify it with regard to able to do something or a likelihood? I know one of the other videos addressed something similar but have no idea where that is buried and didn’t make a note. Yeah, unless there is some explicit textual reason that "can" means "allowed to", you will always correctly read "can" to mean "is possible/is able," and NOT to mean "has permission to/may".