WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

Postby youknowryan » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:43 pm

PT #24, S3, #19

The answer used "some". I thought these arguments had to be air tight and thus "all" or "none" and true conditional statements were correct. Please help explain how/why this one works!

Rough diagramming confuses me more:

Premise 1: walk -> home lunch

SA (choice D): ~some home lunch -> part time job

Conclusion: some part time job -> ~walk

edited my post for clarity.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

Postby suspicious android » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:54 pm

It is not true that the correct answer on a sufficient assumption question has to use words like "all" or "none". Don't know where this idea comes from.

Consider the following argument:

P: All witches are evil.
C: Some evil people like pizza.

Sufficient Assumption: Some witches like pizza.

This question is working on a similar line.

P: If walk to school --> home for lunch
A: ~ home for lunch -some- jobs
C: jobs -some- ~walk to school

According to the assumption and the premise, if you don't go home for lunch you don't walk to school, and there's at least one guy with a job who doesn't go home for lunch. That guy with a job who doesn't go home doesn't walk to school then. So the conclusion follows.
Last edited by suspicious android on Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

Postby youknowryan » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:06 pm

suspicious android wrote:It is not true that the correct answer on a sufficient assumption question has to use words like "all" or "none". Don't know where this idea comes from.

Consider the following argument:

P: All witches are evil.
C: Some evil people like pizza.

Sufficient Assumption: Some witches like pizza.

This question is working on a similar line.

P: If walk to school --> home for lunch
A: ~ home for lunch -some- jobs
C: jobs -some- ~walk to school

According to the assumption and the premise, if you don't go home for lunch you don't walk to school, and there's at least one guy with a job who doesn't go home for lunch. That guy with no job who doesn't go home doesn't walk to school then. So the conclusion follows.



I see what you are saying, and it's obviously correct. It just seemed like a must be true question to me. I actually predicted the answer, but this is the first time I've ever seen a sufficient assumption question where the answer was not an absolute.

User avatar
Ocean64
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

Postby Ocean64 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:45 pm

I think it's best to understand the concept fully and not depend on cue words. what you had to do here is pick the answer that would create a "bridge" between the premise and the conclusion.

P: WS===>GHL
CP:~GHL===>~WS

C: PT <==S==> ~WS

answer needs to create a bridge from premise/it's CP to the conclusion.

A: PT <==S==> ~GHL

and when we connect them we get:

PT <==S==> ~GHL===> ~WS


i think what they're doing here is trying to test your understanding of "some" as a two-way arrow.

Audio Technica Guy
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

Postby Audio Technica Guy » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:53 pm

There are quite a few sufficient assumption questions where the correct answer is "some, most, many" etc.

With sufficient assumption answers, it never hurts for an answer to be stronger, an answer choice can never be too strong, but the answer doesn't HAVE to be strong on a SA question.

Just like on necessary assumptions, if in doubt, you want a weaker answer, an answer can never be too weak, but you can have strong answers.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dontsaywhatyoumean, jagerbom79, Lahtso Nuggin, Tazewell and 9 guests