## December 2010, Section 4, LR, #18 "Sentient Beings"

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.

Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

### December 2010, Section 4, LR, #18 "Sentient Beings"

I really struggle on sufficient assumption questions. I am scoring 170+ on my preptests, but I cringe when I see a sufficient assumption question. On a question like this one, I really leaned towards not diagramming it. I mean I gathered that it is essentially:

Premise: If SB on planets outside solar system --- > ~Determine

Premise: ~Spacecraft

Premise: SB on another planet capable of communicating in the near future ---> at least as intelligent as humans

Conlcusion:
Determine ---> SB at least as intelligent as humans

I also took notice of the varying phrases in the stimulus, going from planets outside our solar system, to later on saying another planet, regardless of whether or not it is in our solar system.

The correct answer is D.
Last edited by secretad on Sat May 28, 2011 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

510Chicken

Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

### Re: December 2010, Section 4, LR, #18 "Sentient Beings"

secretad wrote:D) If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by ending a spacecraft to its planet.

This can be written as:
D --> (C v S) (D = Detect/Determine; C = Communicate; S = Spacecraft)

Since ~S is given:
D --> C

C --> I (I = Intelligent) (Given)
So:
D --> C --> I
D --> I

Which, incidentally, is the conclusion you're looking for.
(or alternatively, ~I --> ~C --> ~D)

lakers3peat

Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:10 pm

### Re: December 2010, Section 4, LR, #18 "Sentient Beings"

510Chicken wrote:D) If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by ending a spacecraft to its planet.

This can be written as:
D --> (C v S) (D = Detect/Determine; C = Communicate; S = Spacecraft)

Since ~S is given:
D --> C
)[/quote]

Is that really inferrable? Jeez I had so much trouble with this question; I thought I had my formal logic down but I guess I dont

Op: you might want to revise your post to remove the infringement, at least paraphrase

Return to â€œLSAT Prep and Discussion Forumâ€?

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests