PT57 S2LR #25

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

PT57 S2LR #25

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:27 pm

I cannot understand how the correct answer is C. Nowhere does the stimulus state anything that would preclude other stipulations from existing that could require registration of contributions from those groups from which Brimley's campaign accepted them.

User avatar
rso11
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: PT57 S2LR #25

Postby rso11 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:57 pm

If he got contributions of over $100 from a nonresident/non-former resident then he has to register. But since he only accepted money from residents and former residents there's no need for him to register anything. You can diagram it as a conditional if you want; the contrapositive is that if he doesn't register (i.e. C) then he didn't get any money from nonres/non-former res. Since we already know the necessary condition is true, C fills in the rest of the contrapositive.

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Re: PT57 S2LR #25

Postby Blindc1rca » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:05 pm

rso11 wrote:If he got contributions of over $100 from a nonresident/non-former resident then he has to register. But since he only accepted money from residents and former residents there's no need for him to register anything. You can diagram it as a conditional if you want; the contrapositive is that if he doesn't register (i.e. C) then he didn't get any money from nonres/non-former res. Since we already know the necessary condition is true, C fills in the rest of the contrapositive.


This doesn't explain anything. Knowing that the necessary condition is true doesn't imply knowing that the sufficient condition is true. There could just as well be another sufficient condition at play.

C+$100NR/NFR---->Reg
Contrapositive: ~Reg---->~C+$100NR/NFR

You are reading the contrapositive backwards to get to your conclusion, e.g. a mistaken reversal. The known information from the stimulus (e.g. ~C+$100NR/NFR) isn't sufficient for ~Reg (eg. answer C).


Hence my confusion.

User avatar
Blindc1rca
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:11 pm

Re: PT57 S2LR #25

Postby Blindc1rca » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:12 am

anyone? to me, the only way that answer C "must be true" is if, in the second line of the stimulus where it says "all contributions," we replace that "all" with "any." But since that's not how it was written I simply cannot see how C must be true.

User avatar
catsparka
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: PT57 S2LR #25

Postby catsparka » Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:27 am

Yeah, I got this question wrong and still don't completely understand why. :(
If anyone can help out, I'd be so so grateful!

User avatar
sayruss11
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:47 pm

Re: PT57 S2LR #25

Postby sayruss11 » Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:35 am

because it says "the law" it means "the only law" meaning there's no other stipulation to the law except that one mentioned. awful question. here's the atlas thread on it.

http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/pt57-s2 ... -t208.html




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, B-Mo, Baidu [Spider], clueless801, curry4bfast, dontsaywhatyoumean, Greenteachurro, GurleyGurleyGone, Thomas Hagan, ESQ. and 14 guests