PT 36 seciton 3 number 12.

am060459
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:14 am

PT 36 seciton 3 number 12.

Postby am060459 » Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:48 pm

PT 36 seciton 3 number 12.

narrowed it to A or B.

someone care to explain why A is correct. thanks.

am060459
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:14 am

Re: PT 36 seciton 3 number 12.

Postby am060459 » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:08 pm

bump

skip james
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 am

Re: PT 36 seciton 3 number 12.

Postby skip james » Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:08 am

This question really just tests your ability to understand (and quickly diagram) conditional statements, so if you're having trouble with that I recommend you practice conditional questions up the yin yang, so that on test day you are prepared.

For the time being, I'll go ahead and show you what this argument looks like diagrammed.

-----

Premise 1: VLaw --> VLimits

Premise 2: VLimits --> NOT knowifactionslegal

Conclusion: VLaw --> NOT Secure

----

So basically if we combine premise 1 and 2 we have this:

Vlaw --> Vlimits --> NOT know

But what we need in conclusion is a way for us to infer from 'Vlaw' all the way to 'NOT secure', except it isn't there in the premises. But that's good, since that means we now know what 'NOT secure' must be in the Gap or the Suppressed Premise that the author assumes (but doesn't state).

So to infer all the way to 'NOT secure' we lengthen the chain so that it reaches the new element in the conclusion:

Vlaw --> Vlimits --> NOT know ---> NOT secure

So our gap is:

NOT know --> NOT secure

and the contrapositive of our gap (which is commonly what LSAC will use as the correct answer for questions like these) is:

If secure ---> THEN know

------

You should also notice that answer choice B uses the word 'might' which conflicts with 'CANNOT' in the stimulus' conclusion, and thus cannot be used to connect the premises to the conclusion.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CMac86 and 10 guests