PT34 Section 3 #25

User avatar
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:29 pm

PT34 Section 3 #25

Postby fishbulb » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:57 pm

Can anyone explain the abstract logic which goes into finding the correct answer? I chose C, but the correct answer is A. I seem to be having trouble with these kind of questions the most, so any tips would be greatly appreciated.

User avatar
Posts: 2758
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: PT34 Section 3 #25

Postby TripTrip » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:50 pm

This is a very tough argument! Here's how the setup could be diagrammed:
I = Environmentally sound investing
D = Decrease market share
P = Polluting environment

I -> D
-I -> P

Alternate solution where
-P & -D
(Note that in Jordan's logic, -P would lead to the conclusion D.)


Now for answer A:

R = Rain
P = Picnic plans thwarted
G = Garden doesn't get watered

R -> P
-R -> G

Alternate solution where
-G & -P
(Note that, again, in Jordan's logic -G would mean P.)

In both arguments, Jordan's premises are one variable, and the "then" parts of the if then statements are always two possible negative consequences depending on whether the variable is true or not. Terry's statement is always an alternate solution where neither negative consequence occurs.


For fun, here's C:

T = Taxes raised
L = Taxes lowered (Not the same as -T, because taxes could be neither raised nor lowered.)
S = Social problems solved (Hint: This is a positive consequence!)
E = Economy grows (Also positive!)

T -> S
L -> E
Thus, (-S & -E)

(-T & -L) -> (-S & -E)

When you break it down, this answer looks nothing like the setup.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MercW07, runnergirl159 and 8 guests