Prep 26, section 3, #22.

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Prep 26, section 3, #22.

Postby soyeonjeon » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:04 pm

Prep 26, section 3, #22

I really don't get this one. I don't see the correct answer in this one. Can someone please help me understand the logic of this problem?

User avatar
relevantfactor
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Prep 26, section 3, #22.

Postby relevantfactor » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:32 pm

Ok.
Let's go into Kay's principle:
If she disagrees with another candidate on some(more than one) issue, then it's ok to vote for.
If she does not disagree with another candidate on more issues, then it's NOT ok to vote.

So for example:
We have L, M, and N.
M disagrees on one issue.
L disagrees on 20 issues.
and N disagrees on 100 issues.
It's okay for her to vote for M. since it's less than the other candidates.

Then we have Medinda who is clearly a filler since the question stem is saying "course of action in any election". The stimulus says that "In the upcoming mayoral election....only Medina shares her opinion on that issue.". So we know that the question stem is clearly asking for any future election, and other than knowing that Medina shares her opinion on this upcoming election, we don't know anything about Medinda.

So for A I have marked that it lacks information. Since we don't know what she will do if there are no important issues.
B, could possibly go against her principle, since we need to know how many disagreements she had, or the ones with most/least to know anything.
C, also could go against her principle. Since for all we know the other candidates could disagree with her on more issues.
D, is the right answer. Since if you have a tie of disagreements, there isn't one that would have less disagreements, and therefore be acceptable to vote.
E, again, without knowing how many disagreements there between each other, this could lead to being wrong.

Hope this helps.

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Re: Prep 26, section 3, #22.

Postby soyeonjeon » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:15 am

Thanks. it helped.

So this question does not have to be solved via using the conditional.

Additional questions: for B and C, would they qualify as answers if they stated "acceptable" in place of "unacceptable"?

Thanks,

User avatar
relevantfactor
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Prep 26, section 3, #22.

Postby relevantfactor » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:33 am

soyeonjeon wrote:Thanks. it helped.

So this question does not have to be solved via using the conditional.

Additional questions: for B and C, would they qualify as answers if they stated "acceptable" in place of "unacceptable"?

Thanks,


You can ignore the logical structure for this question. What I think the test-makers wanted you to understand on this question was the principle. That's all you needed.

And no, not really. Without knowing the disagreement of the others you can't mark it as a must be true. Since for both answers you can have scenarios that could go against her principle. I hope you understood how this principle applies.
Edit: And if you do understand the principle, just think, could this be false? If there is a single possible scenario where the answer wouldn't be 100% true, cross it out - it's wrong.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Bing [Bot], gilmoregirrrl, Hi-So - ArshavinFan, Instrumental, sethnoorzad and 16 guests