PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

freddie
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 am

PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby freddie » Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:53 pm

The first part of the correct answer (d), about sufficient and necessary conditions makes sense to me. I am stuck on the last part of the answer: any obligation to perform an action is a legal obligation.

I would really appreciate it if someone could point out where the latter portion of the answer comes from in the stimulus.

Eternally grateful, Freddie

scuzle
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:52 am

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby scuzle » Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:17 pm

I got stuck on this as well. I think it is saying that we do not have enough information gauge whether or not it can be a legal obligation. Its making a logical leap without qualifying it before. Perhaps if the argument had said "any obligation is necessarily a legal obligation it would hold, but law is just interjected at the end with no relevance in any of the premises.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:05 pm

scuzle wrote:I got stuck on this as well. I think it is saying that we do not have enough information gauge whether or not it can be a legal obligation. Its making a logical leap without qualifying it before. Perhaps if the argument had said "any obligation is necessarily a legal obligation it would hold, but law is just interjected at the end with no relevance in any of the premises.

This is correct, but seems a bit confusing to me.

The reason for the second part of the answer is that even granting the necc/suff flaw in the first step of the argument, the second step inserts "legal obligation" where only "obligation" is implied by the argument. In addition to being poor reasoning, it's patently false; there are many obligations that are not legal obligations.

freddie
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby freddie » Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:42 am

Thanks for the explanations. I am still not grasping it. Since the start of the premise refers to 'any' obligation and 'any' agreement, wouldn't a legal obligation fall under this category? I thought the end of the stimulus, in refering to legal obligations, was giving a specific example for the general statements made at the start of the stimulus...If this is the case, then the stimulus is not saying that any obligation is legal, but that legal obligations are a type of obligation, that follow the rules that govern all obligations.

Where am I going wrong in interpreting the stimulus?

Thanks again!

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby d34d9823 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:10 am

freddie wrote:Thanks for the explanations. I am still not grasping it. Since the start of the premise refers to 'any' obligation and 'any' agreement, wouldn't a legal obligation fall under this category? I thought the end of the stimulus, in refering to legal obligations, was giving a specific example for the general statements made at the start of the stimulus...If this is the case, then the stimulus is not saying that any obligation is legal, but that legal obligations are a type of obligation, that follow the rules that govern all obligations.

Where am I going wrong in interpreting the stimulus?

Thanks again!

It actually is.

freddie
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby freddie » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:26 am

Care to elaborate?

Saltqjibo
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:47 pm

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby Saltqjibo » Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:56 pm

Yeah. I got this one right but only on the "best answer" principle. All the other were pretty far off. I actually don't think the second half of the answer is accurate at all - unless I'm missing something. Rather none of the other answers contained anything "correct". Still wasted way too much time second guessing myself after I had definitively crossed off all the others.

User avatar
PlugInBaby
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:40 am

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby PlugInBaby » Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:41 pm

The first half of the answer is what i prephrased....but the second half didn't jive with me at all. I spent 3 or 4 minutes on that one....but eventually and fortunately settled for D since the others ones didn't seem close.

freddie
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations

Postby freddie » Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:42 pm

Glad to hear that I am not the only one who sees the illogicality of that answer!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RPlatt85 and 11 guests