At the end of 1997 several nations stated that their oil reserves had not changed since the end of 1996. But oil res...

Emil-Kunkin on May 10, 2022

Hi Mazen,

Since this is a strengthen with necessary question, we only care about an answer choice that the author must believe if their argument is to hold. That said, let's see if A would weaken the argument- as that is a useful exercise for weaken questions.

Your interpretation of A to mean that any nation with oil reserves is more likely to be wrong than to have changes is spot on. However, this does not mean that saying there were changes is more likely to be incorrect than saying there are no changes. (A) compares two things: a government being wrong about changes, and the actual outcome of oil reserves being unchanged.

The first thing that A discusses is the likelihood that a government was correct, the second is the likelihood that an event actually did or did not happen. That is, (A) says it is more likely the government was wrong than it is that there was not change.

I think the author would actually agree with this statement, and it might slightly strengthen the argument. The author believes it to be unlikely that reserves were unchanged, so the governments are wrong. This answer choice supports the assertion that it is not likely that oil reserves did not change.

Mazen on May 10, 2022

Emil,

You brought my attention to something else: I strongly believe, based on my practice, that the negation-test for questions about strengthen with necessary premise does NOT work against answer-choices that strengthen with sufficient premise.

First of all, thank you for your explanation. It sounds that A would be a strengthen with sufficient premise, because it guarantees "Any nation...to be mistaken..."

Let us before hand discuss your interpretation of A, are you saying that A differentiates the assessment of a nation about what happens to its oil reserves from what actually happened to its old reserves?

In other words, the government of a nation with oil reserves assesses the changes in its reserves, and based on its assessment makes statements regarding these changes.

The assessments would yield to the statements that either the reserves were changed or unchanged. Reporting a static level in the reserves is more likely to be erroneous than reporting changing one. So by stating that the nation would probably be wrong for stating a static level in its reserves, A undermines the reports/statements that the reserves did not change, thereby strengthening the author's conclusion.

Okay, I see it, and I agree with you, even though A does strengthen, it is not necessary, because the author's conclusion concerns "most" but not "all", and hence not "any."

But there is MORE to learn from this seemingly innocuous question!

Negating A does not work: For any nation with oil reserves, it is NOT more likely [equally likely or less likely] that the nation was mistaken in its statements about changes in its oil reserves than that the nation's oil reserves remained unchanged."

But we do not that level of coverage, "Any," because according to the argument, "several nation.." so at least two, and the conclusion is "most" of the "several."

The author does not need to believe that "Any.." as A states because the conclusion of her argument is tempered with "most" of the "several."

In retrospect, two things I am inquiring about:

One, am I correct to infer based on my studying that when it comes to questions about strengthen with necessary premise, negation-tests do not work against answer-choices that strengthen with sufficient premises?

And two, is my analysis of your explanation and more broadly this question accurate?

Again thank you

Mazen on May 10, 2022

Emil,

You brought my attention to something else: I strongly believe, based on my practice, that the negation-test for questions about strengthen with necessary premise does NOT work against answer-choices that strengthen with sufficient premise.

First of all, thank you for your explanation. It sounds that A would be a strengthen with sufficient premise, because it guarantees "Any nation...to be mistaken..."

Let us before hand discuss your interpretation of A, are you saying that A differentiates the assessment of a nation about what happens to its oil reserves from what actually happened to its oil reserves?

In other words, the government of a nation with oil reserves assesses the changes in its reserves, and based on its assessment makes statements regarding these changes.

The assessments would yield to the statements that either the reserves were changed or unchanged. Reporting a static level in the reserves is more likely to be erroneous than reporting changing one. So by stating that the nation would probably be wrong for stating a static level in its reserves, A undermines the reports/statements that the reserves did not change, thereby strengthening the author's conclusion.

Okay, I see it, and I agree with you, even though A does strengthen, it is not necessary, because the author's conclusion concerns "most" but not "all", and hence not "any."

But there is MORE to learn from this seemingly innocuous question!

Negating A does not work.

Negating A: For any nation with oil reserves, it is NOT more likely [equally likely or less likely] that the nation was mistaken in its statements about changes in its oil reserves than that the nation's oil reserves remained unchanged."

But we do not need that level of coverage, i.e., "Any," because according to the argument, "several nation.." so at least two, and the conclusion is "most" of the "several."

The author does not need to believe that "Any.." as A states because the conclusion of her argument is tempered/moderated with "most" of the "several."

In retrospect, two things I am inquiring about:

One, am I correct to infer based on my studying that when it comes to questions about strengthen with necessary premise, negation-tests do not work against answer-choices that strengthen with sufficient premises?

And two, is my analysis of your explanation and more broadly this question accurate?

Again thank you

Emil-Kunkin on May 15, 2022

Hi Mazen,

I'm not sure that (A) would be a sufficient assumption. The argument is flawed since it fails to consider the possibility that no new fields were found and existing fields were not drained. (A) may be a valid strengthener, but I think that it would not make the argument fully valid- as it fails to address the flaw.

Ultimately, while it is helpful to think about what the wrong answers do, I wouldn't spend too much time on it. The test-writers will write answers differently depending on question types, so even if a wrong answer for a weaken might actually strengthen the argument, or the wrong answer for a strengthen with sufficient might be a necessary assumption, the only real value of recognizing this it improving your pattern recognition in order to recognize wrong answers faster.

Lets look at how we would negate (A). I think your negation is spot on- It is [equally or even less likely] that a nation was wrong than that the reserves remained unchanged. Even if it is equally likely that a nation was wrong as it is that the reserves remained unchanged, I don't think this completely undermines the argument. The argument is about "several" nations, and while several is not a sure number, we can safely assume we are talking about a small sample. Thus, even if it is not more likely in general for a country to be mistaken than it is for them to be wrong, within a small sample it is possible.

A negation needs to completely destroy an argument to be correct, but (A)'s negation does not do so.

Mazen on May 17, 2022

Emil,

The last sentence in the first paragraph of your response is "(A) may be a valid strengthener, but I think that it would not make the argument fully valid- as it fails to address the flaw."

So, generally speaking, I have until this point thought of a sufficient premise, as one that "guarantees" the outcome.

However, based on your justification as to why (A) does not qualify for a sufficient premise, is the fact that it does not fix flaw; or making the argument/conclusion fully "valid" or guaranteed via fixing the flaw.

Per your recommendation, I can safely assume to look for the flaw in the arguments, as except for the conditionally valid arguments, all of the LSAT arguments are flawed in some way; and when it comes to strengthen with sufficient premise, the answer-choice ought to address and fix the flaw!

Did I understand you correctly?

Finally,

Thank You Emil