LR Question 15 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental regulations…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Parallel Reasoning
PRINCIPLE: Environmentalists shouldn’t be the little boy who cried wolf. If they make a mistake then people might not believe them when the situation actually becomes serious.
ANALYSIS: The principle is like the fable of the little boy who cried wolf. He lied and lied and then nobody believed him when the wolf actually came.
The principle is warning us to make sure our arguments are good now: otherwise people won’t listen to us in the future.
None of the wrong answers mention future decisions.
___________
- CORRECT. This warns us that if we don’t present our facts straight now then people won’t listen to us in the future. The stimulus argued the same thing.
- This doesn’t warn about poor decisions in the future.
- This is a good argument, but it just tells us how to persuade. It doesn’t warn about future consequences.
- This is like C. It doesn’t warn us about future consequences.
- This does warn about the future. But it doesn’t warn about a future decision. Instead, it just argues that the future will be bad if we don’t take the right action now.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
This explanation is wrong. You are saying that A is correct because it implies that something will happen in the future as a result of you making false suggestions, and you are making a clear distinction for those two events in terms of the time period and the context. But I am 99.99% confident this isn’t the case nor the reason why this answer is the correct answer.
While the answer is saying that the higher-level managers will refuse to follow their suggestions even when doing so might be a good idea, there’s nothing in the answer that suggests the hiring managers won’t listen to the managers in the future as a result of this event.
The use of the word “will” does not imply that this event is happening in the future after the suggestions are made, and that the refusal is a separate event not related to the suggestion. This is simply a style of grammar in the english language. We use future tense when talking about hypothetical scenarios, but this doesn’t mean the action that happens after the hypothetical scenario happens in the future of the hypothetical scenario or that it’s a separate event.
A: I will ask Joyce out tomorrow.
B: I bet Joyce will say no.
Does the above imply that Joyce will say no in the future of A asking her out? I mean technically, if you want to argue that Joyce saying no 0.2 seconds of A asking her out counts as a “future”. But I don’t think this what the LSAT is trying to test here.
IMO, the reason why A is correct is because:
The principle is that making weak arguments without proper evidence will result in a scenario where people will disagree with you even when you are right. (whether people will disagree with you in the future or present isn’t really the main principle).
A is the correct answer because it’s saying that if middle mangers make their proposals without strong evidence, higher level managers will refuse to accept their proposal even if the middle managers are correct in making the proposal. This is similar to the principle above.
Your reasoning for A being correct is right (and the same thing Graeme is saying, just that you’re refuting the present vs future aspect), but I still think there’s justification for the present vs future distinction Graeme makes.
The stimulus says if environmentalists make weak or inaccurate claims now, the public will not listen to them in the future, even when their claims are valid. This is highlighted in the phrasing “for if it turns out”. Note that for something to have an effect (i.e. the inaccurate claims causing people to not take them seriously), that effect must necessarily come after the cause. That’s the basis of a cause-effect relationship.
A captures this principle by illustrating a similar cause-and-effect scenario. If middle managers fail to present strong evidence now, higher-level managers will not listen to them in the future, even if they’re correct. Again, in the same way as the stimulus, for the middle managers’ inaccurate claims to have a harmful effect, that harmful effect must necessarily come afterwards. Because it’s an effect.
While it’s true that will can describe a hypothetical scenario, the context of both the stimulus and A imply a temporal progression. First, someone presents weak evidence, and then others reject their suggestions because their evidence was weak. Whether this happens minutes, hours, days, or months after the initial weak evidence isn’t necessarily relevant. Future doesn’t have to mean years in the future. It’s just after someone had already made weak suggestions so these weak suggestions lead to people not taking them seriously, even when they’re right.
In essence, the principle in the stimulus is, yes, about people disagreeing with weak arguments, but also about losing credibility in the long run, such that even valid points are ignored. This is mirrored in both the stimulus and A.
Hopefully that clarifies it – apologies for the late response! If you still have questions, please let me know.