PT 21, Section 3 #24 (LR)

User avatar
beezneez
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:53 pm

PT 21, Section 3 #24 (LR)

Postby beezneez » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:48 pm

Hi all,

This one was a bugger! It's an inference question but I just couldn't think it through! I'd be so grateful if someone could explain the thought processes they used.

Thanks again.
Last edited by beezneez on Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: PT 23, Section 3 #24 (LR)

Postby PeanutsNJam » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:57 pm

I saw this question as a "principle" question. I didn't read any books about LR so excuse me if my explanation is in layman's terms (I do whut I waaant!).

When attacking principle questions, I view it as a set of rules. What are the rules in this question?

- In the first sentence, I see "only if". That means that the ONLY circumstance in which a failure to keep a promise is wrong is if doing so harms the other person and other people, when discovering your failure, lose confidence in you.

- It can be written: If my failure to keep a promise was wrong, then I must have both harmed a person and had people lose confidence in me.

- If I do NOT do BOTH harm a person and have people lose confidence in me, then my failure was not wrong.

A.) The principle says nothing about keeping promises. For all we know, this arbitrary principle could state that keeping promises is wrong too.

B.) Jonathan failed to keep a promise (sold secrets), but he didn't hurt anybody. This doesn't fit with the principle; his failure was not wrong.

C.) George failed to keep a promise. He hurt somebody. However, we don't know whether he lost other people's confidence. We can't fully conclude that he was wrong, but let's not cross this one out yet.

D.) Carlo failed to keep a promise. However, he did NOT hurt anybody, NOR did he have others lose confidence in him. This fits with the contra-positive of the principle, and therefore is a 100% fit.

E.) Elizabeth broke a promise, and she lost Steven's confidence. However, we don't know whether she hurt Steven or not. This answer choice is very similar to C.

D is the right answer because it addresses all aspects that the principle says dictates right/wrong.

User avatar
beezneez
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:53 pm

Re: PT 21, Section 3 #24 (LR)

Postby beezneez » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:07 pm

Oh god, I'm such a dummy. I made a typo - It's actually PT21. Ugh

But thanks so much for the PT23 explanation. I followed your explanation through and it made total sense. Appreciated!

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: PT 21, Section 3 #24 (LR)

Postby PeanutsNJam » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:56 pm

NP. Don't worry about it, it helps me as much as it helps you to explain questions.

I don't know how "inference" questions are supposed to be tackled, but I'll give you my approach:

In the stimulus

- Explanation and justification are two different things

- Every action can have an explanation if we can get sufficient knowledge.

- An explanation is synonymous with the causes of the action.

- Actions are only justified if the person has sufficient reason.

- Psychologists discovered that often times, a person's justification and a person's explanation for doing something are unrelated.

- An action is rational if and only if the justification (reasons for doing something) is part of the explanation (the things that caused the action).

- Rephrasing the previous bullet point: If the action is rational ---> then its justification is part of its explanation.

Answer:

Now, you might get bogged down here. "How can there be a cause for something if there's no reason?" Ignore those questions. Let's just move onto the answer choices with what we know and see where we get, k?

A.) We know that an action can have a justification that has nothing to do with the explanation for the action. However, we don't know that that is always the case. A is saying that whenever an action is justified, it has no explanation. The stimulus did not say that justification and explanation are mutually exclusive. Crossed out.

B.) B is reversing the logic. An action can have justification (reason) as part of its explanation (cause) and not be rational.

C.) Obviously wrong because of "never". The stimulus says "often".

D.) Contradicts the second sentence. "Every human action potentially has an explanation (causes)..." the only limiting factor is knowledge.

E.) The only remaining one. It's the opposite of B, and it's the right logic.

Again, to emphasize why E is right and B is wrong:

If A --> B

B.) says If B --> A
E.) says If A --> B




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BEng,MBA,FRM,JD(?), CHyde and 7 guests