very hard SA question (for me anyway..) pt 21, s2, q20 hlp!

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

very hard SA question (for me anyway..) pt 21, s2, q20 hlp!

Postby flash21 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:26 pm

Can someone really break this down to me? I'm really struggling with it.

I've made some type of diagram, but I'm doubting its accuracy. It resembles something like:


Offered fellowship ----> quit job OR leave of abscence----> if doesnt find out about being offered fellowship

I'm quite aware I may have butchered this chain, so I've been sitting here a while trying to make sense of this but can't.

Please help!

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: very hard SA question (for me anyway..) pt 21, s2, q20 hlp!

Postby flash21 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:44 pm

Here is my reasoning for picking (E) , have yet to look at the answer (will check it now)

my logic on this one is a bit sketchy but here it is:

39.
• ann will take a leave of absence from Technocomp and return in a year OR quit her job
• wont do either if offered one year teaching fellowship
• leave of absence allowed IF no knowledge of the fellowship
• Therefore, ann will quit her job at technocomp ONLY IF technocomp finds out she has been offered the fellowship
A.) Does not seem relevant - only if someone informs on her?
B.) Don't think this one - speaking about the reason why, we are trying to find the gap in the argument
C.) seems more like a necessary assumption type answer to me -
D.) hmm .. not sure if this one really make sense for an SA - -
E.) this accounts for her having the job and doing the fellowship at the same time -

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: very hard SA question (for me anyway..) pt 21, s2, q20 hlp!

Postby bp shinners » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:48 pm

A little bit off here, but it's a tricky one with a really tricky diagram.

First statement (up until the colon):
No LoA <--> Quit
No Quit <--> Leave of Absence

We know she's doing at least one of them, which is why the sufficient condition is negated (if she doesn't take the leave of absence, she's quitting). We can make them biconditional because she can't do both - just logically, you can't take a leave of absence and quit.

Second statement is irrelevant - we know she is going to do one of those things, so it doesn't matter what was the impetus.

Third statement:
Not Find out abt Fellowship <--> Allow Leave of Absence
Biconditional because of the "but not otherwise".

Conclusion:
Quit -> Find out abt Fellowship

So I need to start with Quit and end on Find out abt Fellowship, so let's get the relevant conditionals pulled out of our jumble:
Quit -> No Leave of Absence (first statement, biconditional)
Not Allow Leave of Absence -> Find out abt Fellowship (contrapositive of third statement biconditional)

From those two, we start with Quit and end with Find out abt Fellowship, so all we need to do is connect those two statements:
No Leave of Absence -> Not Allow Leave of Absence
or
Allow Leave of Absence -> Leave of Absence
Which is (D).

(E) is about her being offered the job if she quits. That creates a temporal issue on top of the conditionals not matching up - they can't find out about a job offer she hasn't yet received, as she can't get that offer unless she quits. But the bigger issue is that it doesn't connect my terms that need connecting.
Offered Fellowship -> Quit
I need "quit" as a sufficient condition.

User avatar
flash21
Posts: 1536
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: very hard SA question (for me anyway..) pt 21, s2, q20 hlp!

Postby flash21 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:45 pm

Thanks Shinners - is this a complex conditional statement or no? I've never really seen biconditional type statements in LR sections - I could just be oblivious though.

bp shinners
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: very hard SA question (for me anyway..) pt 21, s2, q20 hlp!

Postby bp shinners » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:35 am

flash21 wrote:Thanks Shinners - is this a complex conditional statement or no? I've never really seen biconditional type statements in LR sections - I could just be oblivious though.


They do come up, but rarely. And they're usually stated as "if and/but only if" statements. Which is what makes this one so tricky. Much more often you'll see them in LG.

We use "complex conditionals" to mean con/disjunctions, so I wouldn't necessarily classify it as that (though the first statement could be seen that way), but it's definitely complex by the regular meaning of the word.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], kryptik, Rogah and 10 guests