PT 63, S 3, Q 22

User avatar
koval
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:19 am

PT 63, S 3, Q 22

Postby koval » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:48 am

Can anyone tell me why you couldn't choose B as a correct application of the principle and why only A is correct?

User avatar
90convoy
Posts: 918
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:59 pm

Re: PT 63, S 3, Q 22

Postby 90convoy » Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:25 am

dcruss wrote:Can anyone tell me why you couldn't choose B as a correct application of the principle and why only A is correct?



The only problem that I can see with B is that Penn could have still went beyond what was reasonably expected in another situation. Like saving another kids life. All it says is that Penn didn't in this exact situation.

User avatar
Sinatra
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:40 pm

Re: PT 63, S 3, Q 22

Postby Sinatra » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:28 am

dcruss wrote:Can anyone tell me why you couldn't choose B as a correct application of the principle and why only A is correct?

It's the "should" in the stem that eliminates it. I did this PT yesterday and got the question wrong as well. This is the Manhattan forum explanation:

(B) is tempting. Penn didn't exceed expectations by saving the drowning child. But perhaps he exceeded expectations and saved someone else during the year. Or perhaps there's another way to qualify for "should." In other words, we're told that the ONLY way to be eligible is to have an exemplary record (see (A)). But we aren't told that the ONLY reason someone should get the award is to have saved someone and exceeded expectations by doing so. That could be just one way.

User avatar
koval
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:19 am

Re: PT 63, S 3, Q 22

Postby koval » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:13 pm

Sinatra wrote:
dcruss wrote:Can anyone tell me why you couldn't choose B as a correct application of the principle and why only A is correct?

It's the "should" in the stem that eliminates it. I did this PT yesterday and got the question wrong as well. This is the Manhattan forum explanation:

(B) is tempting. Penn didn't exceed expectations by saving the drowning child. But perhaps he exceeded expectations and saved someone else during the year. Or perhaps there's another way to qualify for "should." In other words, we're told that the ONLY way to be eligible is to have an exemplary record (see (A)). But we aren't told that the ONLY reason someone should get the award is to have saved someone and exceeded expectations by doing so. That could be just one way.


Awesome. Thanks.

User avatar
Silvermanlsat
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:06 pm

Re: PT 63, S 3, Q 22

Postby Silvermanlsat » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:32 pm

This is a really great question in distinguishing sufficient vs necessary conditions. A few conditions here (paraphrased).

"A police officer is eligible for the award if the officer has an exemplary record but not otherwise."

This can be re-stated as "Only if a police officer has an exemplary record is an officer eligible for the award." Having an exemplary record is a necessary condition for eligibility, and so when viewing the answers you should be looking for a situation in which Penn did not receive an exemplary record, as that will prevent him from being eligible for the award.

"If an exemplary police officer performed an act that went beyond what police officers are required to perform, and in doing that act saved a life, then that officer should receive the award."

Importantly, this condition unlike the first condition stated above, is a sufficient, rather than a necessary, condition. In other words, all that we know is that if an eligible police officer satisfies the condition, the officer should receive the award. We know nothing about any officer who fails to satisfy the condition. Unlike with the necessary condition above, proving that an eligible officer did not perform an act that went beyond what police officers are required to perform does not lead to a conclusion that the officer should not receive the award. In addition, proving that an officer did not save anyone's life does not lead to the conclusion that the officer should not receive the award.

Choice B, and a few of the other choices, negates the sufficient condition, and claims that we can draw a conclusion based upon the fact that the condition has not been satisfied. Only choice A negates the necessary condition, and in doing so allows us to draw the conclusion that Franklin should receive the award, but Penn should not.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LSRAT, VMars, WeightliftingThinker and 11 guests