PT 54, S2, Q25

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

PT 54, S2, Q25

Postby dowu » Tue May 08, 2012 7:33 pm

:shock: :shock:
Last edited by dowu on Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:00 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: PT 54, S2, Q25

Postby Nova » Tue May 08, 2012 10:01 pm

Ill try.

Stim:

Free Dessert -> Entree & Dessert //// ~E or ~D -> ~FD
E -> SD / D -> SD //// ~SD -> ~D and ~E
So, ~SD -> ~D and ~E -> ~ FD

A: Totally off. Not worth diagramming

B: EP -> WL & WK
WL -> SBTD / WK -> SBTD
So, EP -> ~SBTD

Not the same conclusion. doesnt make sense.

C: GA-> RH & LA
RH -> GB / LA -> GB //// ~GB -> ~RH and ~LA
So, ~GB -> ~RH and ~LA -> ~GA

Same!!

D: W-> H or OMR

NOT THE SAME. Or instead of and

E: D -> FR & IC
R-> C4L / IC -> C4L
So, ~D -> ~C4L

Switches the conclusion. If it was ~C4L -> ~D, it would be correct. Also, it says "FR" as the variable first. then "R" as the variable in the second sentence.

HTH. If anyone sees a flaw in my reasoning, feel free to point it out.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: PT 54, S2, Q25

Postby dowu » Tue May 08, 2012 10:20 pm

Nova, I think you might have worked on the wrong question. :(

I'm sorry.

Try that link I sent you to see what the question looks like. ;)

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: PT 54, S2, Q25

Postby Nova » Tue May 08, 2012 10:21 pm

BAHHHHHH I DID SECTION 4!!!!

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: PT 54, S2, Q25

Postby dowu » Tue May 08, 2012 10:22 pm

Nova wrote:BAHHHHHH I DID SECTION 4!!!!


Edit your post and give it a shot. I'd like to see if someone can explain this one to me because it's pretty difficult. 1 out of the 4 I missed on this section.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: PT 54, S2, Q25

Postby Nova » Tue May 08, 2012 10:30 pm

OK for real this time.

Stim: If face danger soley for pleasure -> ~courage (in that particular sitution)
~Perseveres in face of fear prompted by 1 or more danger -> ~C

Contra:C-> PiFoFPb1+D

This is not an arguement. Just a fact set. The Quesion is what can be inferred...

A:If one must face fear to avoid pain (which is a danger), -> ~C.

This is not the same thing as doing something solely for pleasure, so it does not disqualify the act from possibly being C. Even if we were to say avoiding pain = pleasure, we can not say this choice is correct because we dont know if there was another reason.

B: If one fears some aspects -> ~C

This negates the sufficient condition of: ~Perserver in face of fear prompted by 1 or more danger -> ~C

C:If one derives P from "some" DA -> ~C ever

This talks about P from DA in certain situations that are not given. The stim is talking about whether C applys to any particular situation. Just because in certain situations one derives pleasure, does not mean that he can not have C in other situations. Also, deriving pleasure doesnt mean ~C unless it is the SOLE REASON.

D: One who does such and such is C only if afraid of danger. (C --> afriad of danger).

This AC is not disqualified by the 1st condition (doing somthing solely for ones own pleasure). It also lines up with
the Contrapositive of the second statement:C-> PiFoFPb1+D

So it can be properly inferred.

E: If one has no F of situations that all others F -> ~C ever

This brings up a completely different circumstances. lets say Im not afraid of beautiful models, but everyone else is. That does not mean that i cant still be afraid of bugs (assuming everyone is not afraid of them), and then act couragously by facing my fear of bugs for ~pleasurable reasons.

HTH?

C & E address Courage in a different manner (they imply that fear in other situations affect any given situation- When the stim treats every situation as its own entity.)

A & B make false inferences based on the structural logic.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: PT 54, S2, Q25

Postby dowu » Thu May 10, 2012 5:57 pm

Nova wrote:OK for real this time.

Stim: If face danger soley for pleasure -> ~courage (in that particular sitution)
~Perseveres in face of fear prompted by 1 or more danger -> ~C

Contra:C-> PiFoFPb1+D

This is not an arguement. Just a fact set. The Quesion is what can be inferred...

A:If one must face fear to avoid pain (which is a danger), -> ~C.

This is not the same thing as doing something solely for pleasure, so it does not disqualify the act from possibly being C. Even if we were to say avoiding pain = pleasure, we can not say this choice is correct because we dont know if there was another reason.

B: If one fears some aspects -> ~C

This negates the sufficient condition of: ~Perserver in face of fear prompted by 1 or more danger -> ~C

C:If one derives P from "some" DA -> ~C ever

This talks about P from DA in certain situations that are not given. The stim is talking about whether C applys to any particular situation. Just because in certain situations one derives pleasure, does not mean that he can not have C in other situations. Also, deriving pleasure doesnt mean ~C unless it is the SOLE REASON.

D: One who does such and such is C only if afraid of danger. (C --> afriad of danger).

This AC is not disqualified by the 1st condition (doing somthing solely for ones own pleasure). It also lines up with
the Contrapositive of the second statement:C-> PiFoFPb1+D

So it can be properly inferred.

E: If one has no F of situations that all others F -> ~C ever

This brings up a completely different circumstances. lets say Im not afraid of beautiful models, but everyone else is. That does not mean that i cant still be afraid of bugs (assuming everyone is not afraid of them), and then act couragously by facing my fear of bugs for ~pleasurable reasons.

HTH?

C & E address Courage in a different manner (they imply that fear in other situations affect any given situation- When the stim treats every situation as its own entity.)

A & B make false inferences based on the structural logic.



Great expanation. Thank you for that, Nova. You're a gentleman and a scholar.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Instrumental, MSNbot Media, njames1961 and 8 guests