The reason why it’s D is because if you look at the MAIN argument: “so archway must use shoddy, substandard components...”, D is the only answer that can combat that argument. The rest of the fluff within the passage is just detailing that supports the main argument. So, going after the details would not provide the best criticism 😊 good luck to everyone studying for lsat!!!
The key here is identifying the conclusion. It’s actually split, something like “archway dryer is of low quality because they must use shitty components.” What would weaken that? Maybe there’s another way to have a low quality dryer. This is what D says.
The fact of the matter is it does not matter if you consistently perform well. The argument is weak because we are determining if this specific fire was the result of shoddy components or loose parts. D is a better choice because it addresses the logic of the original statement to show why the resultant conclusion is irrational
Couldn't B also be a correct answer since D is technically included in it? Due to the fact that "a shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts" (D) IS an "aspect of dryer construction that is more relevant to the quality of the finished product" (B) than substandard components being used.
No, B is method of construction and D is the parts used in construction Focus on the subject/object of the sentence to clarify these things, B is about construction, the constructive process, D is about the parts that just happen to be used during construction
This makes 0 sense to me logically, how could it be D when it quite literally says in a sentence, “concern for QUALITY and safety is conspicuously lacking”???
Yes you are right, it says “quality is ‘lacking.’” So when you consider this premise, only answer choice that refute this argument is that: the shoddily constructed appliance CAN BE made out of high quality parts. In other words, although the product is shoddily, there is a possibility that it could have been made out of quality ingredients.
There are many ways "quality" can be lacking. Something can be made off poor quality parts or it can be made of high-quality parts but is put together badly and thus the product doesn't work (and thus is low quality). If overall argument of the question is about the first way quality is bad, but it can be bad in a different way.
I’ve taken GRE classes for questions similar to this LSAT question. Here’s how I perceive D as the correct answer. The statement says that parts are missing and some parts are assembled in the wrong order. Those errors causes the lack of quality and it causes a safety hazard. You can still have quality parts in the machine and still have missing parts and wrong assembly order. So D is correct. Just because parts are missing and assembly were done the incorrect order, doesn’t mean they used substandard parts
Well, if looking at the type of question this is, it should be cookie cutter. I struggle with some of the question types which is why I am studying, but for this example, it isn't asking "if these statements were true, which one undermines the logic"...this question quite literally is looking for a flaw...I think also part of the flaw is all but D are making assumptions about the whole problem, without that information being given and the only choice that reference a logical statement in this passage without assumptions would be "D".
melania khan Because we don’t care about that statement. We care about the relationship between the support and the conclusion. The “concern for safety” is not the support or the conclusion. You need to focus on the conclusion (the last sentence) and the support (the crucial bolts are missing sentence). They jumped from saying crucial bolts are missing and things are assembled in the wrong order to concluding that the components of the dryer must be shoddy. No. That’s not right.
Because quality can mean anything . It doesn’t mean quality of components . And that would be a fair argument . You are being tested on your ability to understand negotiation , points of view, abstract thought etc. much like a defense attorney would be tasked with fishing out exculpatory reasoning and facts from given evidence . It’s just testing your ability for abstract thought
Because that is the argument, an opinion. The reason for that opinion was bolts are missing, and parts are assembled in wrong order. Not because the parts were of low quality. And if the prosecutor was on this case and making this case that the manufacturer was lacking concern for safety and quality based on assembly order and some missing bolts, he’s evidences are not enough. He should have checked that the parts are high quality. This concludes that the prosecutor did not check if the parts were low-quality, or he doesn’t care, or he has no knowledge of it and tried to get away with poor selection of evidences that he ‘thinks”. If, the manufactuer used high quality parts, that argument can be rebuked. By the way The question already came up with bad conclusion which shouldn’t have come out anyway. The defendant should raise objection immediately and say but the parts were of high quality. By the way, it is the most vulnerable type question. Every answers are true. This is a trap question.
@@Johann01198 lol I can’t believe someone replied to this question two years later I don’t even remember asking this question LOL well I decided not to go to law school ha ha I’m in a PhD program now peace out lawyers
Man I need to just go to law school and stop playing. Law school tests were always felt to be like kindergarten to me. This is my first question and I got it right.
The reason why it’s D is because if you look at the MAIN argument: “so archway must use shoddy, substandard components...”, D is the only answer that can combat that argument. The rest of the fluff within the passage is just detailing that supports the main argument. So, going after the details would not provide the best criticism 😊 good luck to everyone studying for lsat!!!
The key here is identifying the conclusion. It’s actually split, something like “archway dryer is of low quality because they must use shitty components.”
What would weaken that? Maybe there’s another way to have a low quality dryer. This is what D says.
Straight to the point
The fact of the matter is it does not matter if you consistently perform well. The argument is weak because we are determining if this specific fire was the result of shoddy components or loose parts. D is a better choice because it addresses the logic of the original statement to show why the resultant conclusion is irrational
Yay!! I got it right, my first video 🥲
Is the LSAT literally just reading comp
Wait until logic games
Couldn't B also be a correct answer since D is technically included in it? Due to the fact that "a shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts" (D) IS an "aspect of dryer construction that is more relevant to the quality of the finished product" (B) than substandard components being used.
No, B is method of construction and D is the parts used in construction
Focus on the subject/object of the sentence to clarify these things, B is about construction, the constructive process, D is about the parts that just happen to be used during construction
This makes 0 sense to me logically, how could it be D when it quite literally says in a sentence, “concern for QUALITY and safety is conspicuously lacking”???
Yes you are right, it says “quality is ‘lacking.’” So when you consider this premise, only answer choice that refute this argument is that: the shoddily constructed appliance CAN BE made out of high quality parts. In other words, although the product is shoddily, there is a possibility that it could have been made out of quality ingredients.
There are many ways "quality" can be lacking. Something can be made off poor quality parts or it can be made of high-quality parts but is put together badly and thus the product doesn't work (and thus is low quality). If overall argument of the question is about the first way quality is bad, but it can be bad in a different way.
I’ve taken GRE classes for questions similar to this LSAT question.
Here’s how I perceive D as the correct answer.
The statement says that parts are missing and some parts are assembled in the wrong order.
Those errors causes the lack of quality and it causes a safety hazard.
You can still have quality parts in the machine and still have missing parts and wrong assembly order.
So D is correct. Just because parts are missing and assembly were done the incorrect order, doesn’t mean they used substandard parts
That’s the evidence, now the conclusion.
Well, if looking at the type of question this is, it should be cookie cutter. I struggle with some of the question types which is why I am studying, but for this example, it isn't asking "if these statements were true, which one undermines the logic"...this question quite literally is looking for a flaw...I think also part of the flaw is all but D are making assumptions about the whole problem, without that information being given and the only choice that reference a logical statement in this passage without assumptions would be "D".
Dude sounds like DJ Vlad
😂 Yup
4:21 You mean choice E?
How is it possible to be D when it literally says in the passage “concern for safety and quality is lacking”?
melania khan Because we don’t care about that statement. We care about the relationship between the support and the conclusion. The “concern for safety” is not the support or the conclusion. You need to focus on the conclusion (the last sentence) and the support (the crucial bolts are missing sentence). They jumped from saying crucial bolts are missing and things are assembled in the wrong order to concluding that the components of the dryer must be shoddy. No. That’s not right.
Even if the concern for safety and quality is lacking, that doesn't mean that the underlying parts of the machine are bad
Because quality can mean anything . It doesn’t mean quality of components . And that would be a fair argument . You are being tested on your ability to understand negotiation , points of view, abstract thought etc. much like a defense attorney would be tasked with fishing out exculpatory reasoning and facts from given evidence . It’s just testing your ability for abstract thought
Because that is the argument, an opinion. The reason for that opinion was bolts are missing, and parts are assembled in wrong order. Not because the parts were of low quality. And if the prosecutor was on this case and making this case that the manufacturer was lacking concern for safety and quality based on assembly order and some missing bolts, he’s evidences are not enough. He should have checked that the parts are high quality. This concludes that the prosecutor did not check if the parts were low-quality, or he doesn’t care, or he has no knowledge of it and tried to get away with poor selection of evidences that he ‘thinks”. If, the manufactuer used high quality parts, that argument can be rebuked. By the way The question already came up with bad conclusion which shouldn’t have come out anyway. The defendant should raise objection immediately and say but the parts were of high quality. By the way, it is the most vulnerable type question. Every answers are true. This is a trap question.
@@Johann01198 lol I can’t believe someone replied to this question two years later I don’t even remember asking this question LOL well I decided not to go to law school ha ha I’m in a PhD program now peace out lawyers
Man I need to just go to law school and stop playing. Law school tests were always felt to be like kindergarten to me. This is my first question and I got it right.
if ur struggling with this easy question then good luck lol
Me was struggling.
This isn't a difficult question. It's pretty cookie cutter. Grow some balls and hit up the last 5 questions of an LR section. Kthx.
Well damn, you weren't messing around were you!?!?