I've been under the impression that the term "often" is more analogous with most not always, yet the right answer to the above mentioned problem, as well as Kaplan, indicates the opposite.
My belief is that just because something happens "often" it is not destined to happen all the time.
One of the "wrong" answer choices to this parallel reasoning question includes the word 'most' in its reasoning, while the "right" one includes 'always'.
So, what gives?
PT 43 sec 3 #25 "often" more similar to always or most? Forum
-
jdhopeful11
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:39 pm
-
KaplanLSATInstructor
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:53 pm
Re: PT 43 sec 3 #25 "often" more similar to always or most?
"Often" is not equivalent to most, nor is it equivalent to always. For example, if I go to the movies twice a week, you could say I go to the movies often. However, that doesn't mean I go on most days, and hardly means I always go to the movies.
To work with Q. 23, you have to understand the proper negation of the logic. The logic says:
"good things cause no harm at all."
In formal logic, that would say: if something is good, then it causes NO harm.
When you form the contrapositive, it should read: If something causes any harm whatsoever, then it's not good.
It doesn't have to cause harm all the time, or even most of the time. If it ever causes harm -- even once -- it's can't be good. So, based on the stimulus, wealth often causes harm. Once it causes just one person harm, that's it -- it can't be good. That's why the stimulus simply plays a perfect contrapositive... as does the correct answer, (A).
The problem with (D) (I'm assuming the answer you were looking at), is that logic says MOST dachshunds hunt poorly. However, that opens up the possibility of dachshunds that are good hunters. In the original stimulus, good things NEVER cause harm. There's no possibility of a good thing causing harm.
HTH
- Chris
To work with Q. 23, you have to understand the proper negation of the logic. The logic says:
"good things cause no harm at all."
In formal logic, that would say: if something is good, then it causes NO harm.
When you form the contrapositive, it should read: If something causes any harm whatsoever, then it's not good.
It doesn't have to cause harm all the time, or even most of the time. If it ever causes harm -- even once -- it's can't be good. So, based on the stimulus, wealth often causes harm. Once it causes just one person harm, that's it -- it can't be good. That's why the stimulus simply plays a perfect contrapositive... as does the correct answer, (A).
The problem with (D) (I'm assuming the answer you were looking at), is that logic says MOST dachshunds hunt poorly. However, that opens up the possibility of dachshunds that are good hunters. In the original stimulus, good things NEVER cause harm. There's no possibility of a good thing causing harm.
HTH
- Chris
