PT 31 Sec-2 #19

User avatar
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 1:13 am

PT 31 Sec-2 #19

Postby ltowns1 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:40 pm

Are we basically just attacking the necessary condition of the first conditional premise here? It would seem to me that the following sentence "Drew received roses" does not trigger anything, and because of that, you should just attack the necessary condition of the first premise? Is that too simplistic of a view of this question. I see on the forums this one has been a lot of trouble for some

User avatar
Clyde Frog
Posts: 5916
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:27 am

Re: PT 31 Sec-2 #19

Postby Clyde Frog » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:07 pm

This is a tough question. Here's how I looked at it. The first premise says that if he received flowers by someone who knows him well then they would know he likes violets over roses. If they were sent by someone who did not him well then he would have received a card.

The conclusion is that the florist must have made some sort of mistake, either he was supposed to receive violets or a card or the flowers were intended for someone else.

The speaker is assuming that he would receive violets if someone knew him well because he prefers them. This does not mean that people always will do something that you prefer. All the premise says is that if they knew him well then they would know he prefers violets to roses.

Ex. If My dog received a treat by someone who knew them well then they would know he prefers T-bone steak to a milkbone treat, but he received a milkbone so this person obviously doesn't know him well.

Maybe there are other reasons that this persons did not heed to my dog's preference. For example, steak is expensive, or an entire steak may make him sick.

In this question you could say that the person maybe knew Drew well but didn't like them so they did not want to please them, or maybe violets are too expensive.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

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