PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!

User avatar
jesuis
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:56 am

PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!

Postby jesuis » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:28 am

I know that someone (clint4law) already has a post about this particular question. However, even after reviewing the responses on that thread, I unfortunately am not 100% comfortable with this question. So I would sincerely appreciate any elaboration on the logic of the passage itself and specifically why D is the correct anwer as well as why the other answer choices are incorrect.

As I understand the passage, it gives the following two primeses and conclusion:
(S = support tax, E = have a chance of election, U = understand economics)

Premise 1. S --> not E ( = E --> not S)
Premise 2. U --> not S ( = S --> not U)
Concl. E --> U ( = not U --> not E)

The question asks about the flaw in the reasoning.

I would love to have your input on why D is the correct answer, and why A, B, E and especially C are all incorrect.

Thank you, in advance!

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!

Postby whymeohgodno » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:12 am

I'm pretty sure the question you are referring to isn't PT 10 section 4 question 9.

policestate1234
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:43 pm

Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!

Postby policestate1234 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:13 am

Bro what are you talking about? PT 10 Section 4 Question 9 is about the carpet markets.

User avatar
jesuis
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:56 am

Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!

Postby jesuis » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:10 pm

ah! yes, sorry about that (wrote the post right before bed)...
it's PT 14 (section 4, question 9)

petrovovitch@
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!

Postby petrovovitch@ » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:18 pm

premises

supports tax law -> no chance of being elected.
understands econ -> not support tax law

conclusion

chance of being elected -> understands econ

i don't know what you would call this error (mistaken reversal, mistaken negation) but

a. not possible according to the premise 2
b. beyond scope
c. restatement of premise 1
d. imagines a possibility where you can get elected since you do not support the tax law but do not understand econ which the premises allow for.
e. beyond scope




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests