Can someone help me with this question...

Mateudn
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:35 am

Can someone help me with this question...

Postby Mateudn » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:35 pm

PT 21, S2, #20 (page 94)

Can someone please show me all the conditional diagrams in this question and, more importantly, how to get to the right answer?

I got it right but I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong/inefficient.

Thanks in advance.


User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4165
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Can someone help me with this question...

Postby Clearly » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:02 am

I almost never chart assumption questions, and never until I take a look at the answer choices. I'm assuming your familiar with the concept of an assumption so I won't go into that. My mindset when I saw this question was "Oh boy charting might get serious here" I loosely scanned the question, got an idea of whats going on vaguely, and did a first pass at the answer choices.
A) I glanced about halfway through the stimulus, saw the flaw (being that a->b obv doesnt mean a only if b)
B) Reason? crossed it off
C) Competitors? crossed it off
D) I'll come back to it, why not
E) counter intuitive to the argument.

Some may feel more comfortable with this by charting it, but you'll notice none of the wrong answer choices play to an assumption that a complete understanding of conditional logic would be needed to disprove..but rather each of the 3 remaining choices that aren't absurd deal with only a specific line.
A) just stood out to me right away as likely being wrong, it doesn't mention someone informing, but goes on to say that the thing not even mentioned in the stimulus is now the only way that could happen...
E) without charting anything i reread the passage quickly and got halfway through before I saw this couldn't really make sense, much less be a valid assumption. The argument never really says the conditions which must be met in order to get the fellowship...She only does A or B if (and only if) C, E says A or B has to cause C...but clearly that couldn't be, as C also has to cause B

I expressed the explanation using conditional logic because its really the only way to effectively get the point across, but I did this question right off my monitor..diagramming is very often needed, but the specificity of the remaining answer choices after eliminating the obviously wrong ones let me know that I didn't really have to get to the real deep conditional logic here...all in all it took around a minute, if that... Another thing I just realized when trying to explain the way I worked through it, was if any of the remaining possible answer choices include what appears to be a contra-positive, I would strongly consider diagramming, if they all appear to be forward facing, not negated logic, I'd personally work through it in my head for 45 seconds or so before I started charting.

My usual disclaimer: I'm not an LSAT expert, and I very well could have fucked everything up, I'm just sharing my view on it and how I attacked it.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dontsaywhatyoumean, Instrumental, qemini1594 and 10 guests