pt33s1#21

HOV
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 3:31 pm

pt33s1#21

Postby HOV » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:46 pm

i'm having a really difficult time with this one for some reason and i feel like i shouldn't be. i can't see why the answer is C and not E. can someone please explain the difference to me? i have a feeling that a flawed interpretation of the stimulus is botching things up for me.

edit: i think the stimulus is saying

Not relevant ---> avoid

which matches C i think.

and E would be:

relevant ----> raise question (don't avoid)

so picking E would be denying the antecedent and therefore erroneous right?

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: pt33s1#21

Postby 3|ink » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:08 pm

HOV wrote:i'm having a really difficult time with this one for some reason and i feel like i shouldn't be. i can't see why the answer is C and not E. can someone please explain the difference to me? i have a feeling that a flawed interpretation of the stimulus is botching things up for me.

edit: i think the stimulus is saying

Not relevant ---> avoid

which matches C i think.

and E would be:

relevant ----> raise question (don't avoid)

so picking E would be denying the antecedent and therefore erroneous right?


Denying the antecedent? Is that another way of saying negating the sufficient condition?

The stimulus never leaves room for exception to the principle (first sentence). The answer choice cites an exception to the principle.

I think I see what you mean now. The first sentence is simply a statement of fact. The answer choice places the negation of that statement of fact in the necessary condition and another condition in the sufficient. I think it's easier to call this answer choice irrelevant. It could be consistent with the information above. However, it is out of scope.

I suppose the easiest way to knock out this answer choice was noticing the negated form of the first sentence in the necessary condition. When a statement of fact is alone, as it is in the stimulus, and you're asked to justify that stimulus, you're looking for a sufficient condition to strengthen that statement.

HOV
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 3:31 pm

Re: pt33s1#21

Postby HOV » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:28 pm

thanks.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], bcapace, dontsaywhatyoumean, harveybirdman502, Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests