June 2007 LSAT Question Explanations June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR...

June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR - Q20

Video Transcript:

0:06
Question 20, Gamba: Munoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association
0:12
overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition.
0:19
The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of the 350
0:26
members voted, with 10 in favor of the system.
0:30
Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville's population.
0:36
One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville's residents.
0:42
Argument of facts?
0:44
Clearly we have an argument here and our conclusion is the last sentence, "One should not assume
0:49
that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville's residents."
0:57
And how do we know that?
0:58
Well, while the association did pass a resolution, only 25 people voted on it and 15 opposed
1:06
it.
1:07
15 is less than 1 percent of Hopeville's population, so Munoz shouldn't be citing this resolution
1:16
by the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association as evidence of citywide opposition.
1:23
Now that we have the argument clear, we move to the question stem.
1:27
Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba's strategy of argumentation?
1:34
Describe the strategy of argumentation that is a Method of Reasoning question so looking
1:41
for the answer choice that explains how Gamba arrives at his conclusion, that one should
1:47
not assume so few votes represent the view of the majority.
1:52
(A) questioning a conclusion based on the results of a vote, on the grounds that people
1:57
with certain views are more likely to vote.
2:00
If you notice that is not what Gamba does.
2:02
It doesn't say that these people are more likely to vote.
2:05
His issue is that there is such a small number of people opposing it when compared to the
2:12
entire Hopeville population.
2:14
So (A) does not apply.
2:15
(A) would be eliminated.
2:17
(B) questioning a claim supported by statistical data by arguing that statistical data can
2:24
be manipulated to support whatever view the interpreter wants to support.
2:29
Again, you notice that is not what Gamba is doing.
2:32
He's not arguing that statistical data can be manipulated to support whatever view the
2:37
interpreter wants.
2:40
Gamba's issue is that the number of people opposing it is such a small number in comparison
2:46
to Hopeville's population, so (B) is out.
2:50
(C) attempting to refute an argument by showing that, contrary to what has been claimed, the
2:56
truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
3:00
Again, you notice contrary to what has been claimed.
3:05
Munoz didn't claim that if it is in fact a case that the association overwhelmingly opposes
3:12
the new water system, that that guarantees that the city opposes it.
3:19
So (C) again does not apply to what we saw in our passage so (C) is eliminated.
3:25
(D) criticizing a view on the grounds that the view is based on evidence that is in principle
3:31
impossible to disconfirm.
3:34
Again, that is not Gamba's problem here.
3:37
It's not about being impossible to disconfirm.
3:41
So (D) again does not apply, which brings us process of elimination to (E), attempting
3:48
to cast doubt on a conclusion?again, the conclusion being evidence of citywide opposition?by
3:56
claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be
4:01
dependable.
4:02
Again, this statistical sample is the 15 opposing votes, which is less than 1 percent of Hopeville's
4:13
population.
4:15
You notice (E) is exactly what we saw?that 15 votes is too small to be dependable.
4:22
We cannot say that this is evidence of citywide opposition so (E) would be the correct answer.