December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26

Ioannis
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:24 am

December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26

Postby Ioannis » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:20 pm

"if Blankenship Enterprises has to switch....." question. Could someone explain the wording in Answer B?

It makes no sense to me

User avatar
boblawlob
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26

Postby boblawlob » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:51 pm

Premise: Switch Supplier -> No profit
Conclusion: No Profit -> Switch Supplier

Classic Reversal


A. Not circular argument. Argument doesn't just simply restate the premise...rather it interprets it differently than it should. Wrong.
B. Based on the premise, showing "no profit" can result from switching suppliers. But there are possibly other ways that are sufficient to ensure "no profit." The conclusion basically says that if there is "no profit," then that MUST MEAN you switched supplier. This answer choice is really wordy but the phenomenon referred to is "no profit" and the condition is "switching suppliers."
C. There is no equivocation. Wrong.
D. Argument uses conditional language, not statistics nor any particular example. Wrong.
E. Conditional language used. No casual relationships involved in argument. Wrong.

Ioannis
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:24 am

Re: December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26

Postby Ioannis » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:56 pm

boblawlob wrote:Premise: Switch Supplier -> No profit
Conclusion: No Profit -> Switch Supplier

Classic Reversal


A. Not circular argument. Argument doesn't just simply restate the premise...rather it interprets it differently than it should. Wrong.
B. Based on the premise, showing "no profit" can result from switching suppliers. But there are possibly other ways that are sufficient to ensure "no profit." The conclusion basically says that if there is "no profit," then that MUST MEAN you switched supplier. This answer choice is really wordy but the phenomenon referred to is "no profit" and the condition is "switching suppliers."
C. There is no equivocation. Wrong.
D. Argument uses conditional language, not statistics nor any particular example. Wrong.
E. Conditional language used. No casual relationships involved in argument. Wrong.


that was fast... i love you.... a lot..

Ioannis
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:24 am

Re: December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26

Postby Ioannis » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:13 pm

boblawlob wrote:Premise: Switch Supplier -> No profit
Conclusion: No Profit -> Switch Supplier

Classic Reversal


A. Not circular argument. Argument doesn't just simply restate the premise...rather it interprets it differently than it should. Wrong.
B. Based on the premise, showing "no profit" can result from switching suppliers. But there are possibly other ways that are sufficient to ensure "no profit." The conclusion basically says that if there is "no profit," then that MUST MEAN you switched supplier. This answer choice is really wordy but the phenomenon referred to is "no profit" and the condition is "switching suppliers."
C. There is no equivocation. Wrong.
D. Argument uses conditional language, not statistics nor any particular example. Wrong.
E. Conditional language used. No casual relationships involved in argument. Wrong.


B is basically saying that the conclusion is a mistaken reversal,therefor not logically sound.

right?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, bcapace, BobBoblaw, Grond and 16 guests