WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

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

Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

WFT: Sufficient Assumption Question using "some"?

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.

suspicious android

Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

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

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: 181
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

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

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.

Ocean64

Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

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

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"?

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.