PT 20, Section 4, #11

User avatar
dsb83
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:57 pm

PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby dsb83 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:53 pm

I tried to search for this but couldn't find anything. I also looked at Kaplan's explanation, and it didn't address the issue that confuses me.

Question is which one of the assumptions does the argument depend on?

A, B and C are easy to eliminate.

D is that he did not work Saturday or Sunday.

E.) There were no days last week on which John both worked in the insurance company and also worked as a blacksmith.

So I see why D must be assumed. If it's not, John could have worked at the insurance company on Saturday and Sunday. However, I think E must also be assumed. It says he worked as blacksmith on Friday and that he works 5 days a week. It does not say he does not work as a insurance agent on Friday also or that he does not work as both a blacksmith and agent on some days(this is the assumption of E). So if this isn't assumed then why couldn't his week have looked liked this?

M T W Th F
I -I -I -B -B
-----------I

This would satisfy the conditions that he works 5 days, works as a blacksmith on Friday and works 4 days as an insurance agent. So wouldn't you have to assume D AND E? What am I missing?

Thanks.
Last edited by dsb83 on Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ExecDirect
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby ExecDirect » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:07 pm

Because it doesn't matter if he worked both he still has to work "4 days" at the insurance. which would still have to be asumed that he didn't work on Sun or Sat for the argument to follow logically. in your diagram he would have still had to look like this:
M-i, T-i, W-i, TH-b/i, F-b. still just assuming not Sat/Sun. Only assumption you need to make.

User avatar
dsb83
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:57 pm

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby dsb83 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:18 pm

The last I was intended to be under Friday

M:I
T:I
W:I
Th:B
F:B,I

I guess I don't understand why he can't work at the insurance agency on Friday? It doesn't say he only works as a blacksmith on Friday. The only way I see to assure he works at insurance agency M, T, W, Th is if he is not allowed to work two jobs on the same day and is not allowed to work on Sat/Sun(Answer choices D and E)

User avatar
dsb83
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:57 pm

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby dsb83 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:20 pm

I guess you're supposed to assume that he only works as a blacksmith on Friday, but I don't see how the language justifies it. It should say "he works only as a blacksmith on Friday.

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:38 am

Off the top of my head, I think the issue is that even if he worked a day at both jobs, it doesn't have to be Friday. Perhaps he worked both jobs on Monday, in which case the conclusion could stand. So, you don't need to assume that he didn't work a double on any day.

But, with the correct answer, if he worked a Saturday, we knowhe didn't work every day M-Th, since Fridays are already locked in.

User avatar
ExecDirect
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby ExecDirect » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:49 am

dsb83 wrote:I guess you're supposed to assume that he only works as a blacksmith on Friday, but I don't see how the language justifies it. It should say "he works only as a blacksmith on Friday.


the stem asks which assumption it "depends on" it does not depend on E but it does depend on D. without D you can not make the argument but without assuming E you can still make the argument. I could be wrong, but I think this is the part to focus on. Ask Dave Hall if your still unsure. It is very tricky and I think I would have picked D on the LSAT but been unsure still.

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:10 am

I just put up an explanation on our forums:

The conclusion of this argument is that John worked M-Th at the insurance company. Why?

Because there were no holidays and he didn't take a vacation, and we know that if there's no holiday or vacation he works 4 days per week at the insurance company. Oh, also, on Fridays he works as a blacksmith. (What a diverse career!)

So, what's the gap(s)? It seems like a strong argument - hard to say! But, probably we've all added in the assumption that the 4 days have to be only during the weekdays - couldn't John work Saturday or Sunday? That's the issue that (D) addresses. Since the question is asking for a necessary assumption, let's use our negation test. If we negate (D), and have John working on Saturday and/or Sunday, since Friday is locked in at the blacksmith shop (smithy?) we'll need to have John take a day off between Monday and Thursday.

Let's look at the wrong answers:

(A) is out of scope - we know that John's not on vacation. Who cares how long he vacations for at other times?

(B) is tempting, but try negating it: at some point last week, John worked a half day. Perhaps that seems like it would disqualify a day, but the argument doesn't talk about full days or half days - for all we know, a half day is fine.

(C) is similar to (A) - it's about vacations, and we know he didn't vacation that week.

(E) is super tempting! Its negated form seems to suggest that perhaps John worked Friday both as a blacksmith and an insurance agent. But, it actually doesn't specifically suggest that. If we negate (E) we learn that there were some days on which John worked both jobs. Which day? If it was Friday, that'd be a problem for our argument. But, if it were Tuesday, who cares? Then it'd be that John did insurance M-Th, and worked as a blacksmith Tuesday and Friday.

We need the negated form of a necessary assumption to do more than simply open up an opportunity to destroy the argument, we need it to definitively destroy the argument. In this case, it's OK if John does a double shift; it would not be OK if he did a double shift on Friday - but (E) doesn't tell us about Friday.

[edit: typo]

User avatar
dsb83
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:57 pm

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby dsb83 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:55 pm

Thanks for help, but it still seems to me that to be completely logically sound, the argument must assume that he does not double up on Friday. To make this assumption, it could either specify directly that he does not work both jobs on Friday or that he does not work both jobs any day. If this assumption is not made, then it's possible he doubled up on Friday and did not work in Insurance on M, T, W and Th. So even if D is assumed, without E, he does not have to work on MTWTh. I don't miss many LR anymore -- typically -0 or -1 on a PT -- but if I do miss one, I can usually see clearly why. I can't do that here. On the LSAT I would bubble in D and E. :) Oh well.

User avatar
dsb83
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:57 pm

Re: PT 20, Section 4, #11

Postby dsb83 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:28 pm

Thanks for the help. I just got it. Similar to your explanation, Manhattan, E is not correct, because it is too broad of an assumption. It is not necessary to assume he does not work both jobs on any day, only that he does not work both on Friday. So the argument does not depend on (E) like it does (D).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests