## PT 20 S4 Q15

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
New_Spice180

Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

### PT 20 S4 Q15

This is an interesting question! I actually answered this correctly and I thought I had it but when I saw the explanations they're saying it's a A(Ronda goes)> B(Paul goes)> C (Ted goes) that strikes me as strange! I saw unless, so I negated the sufficient and got (Ted doesn't go)>(Paul won't go) therefore Ronda won't go, which led me to the correct answer choice. My problem is that the A>B>C relationship, doesn't that essentially say B (Paul going) is sufficient for Ted to go, which isn't what the stimulus is saying? I'm lost, HELP!

Blueprint Mithun

Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

### Re: PT 20 S4 Q15

New_Spice180 wrote:This is an interesting question! I actually answered this correctly and I thought I had it but when I saw the explanations they're saying it's a A(Ronda goes)> B(Paul goes)> C (Ted goes) that strikes me as strange! I saw unless, so I negated the sufficient and got (Ted doesn't go)>(Paul won't go) therefore Ronda won't go, which led me to the correct answer choice. My problem is that the A>B>C relationship, doesn't that essentially say B (Paul going) is sufficient for Ted to go, which isn't what the stimulus is saying? I'm lost, HELP!

No, that is what the stimulus is saying, albeit in a different order. Like you said, if Ted doesn't go, then Paul won't go. The contrapositive of this is that if Paul goes, then Ted goes. Paul going is contingent on Ted going, thus Ted going is the necessary condition for Paul going. Ted HAS to go for Paul to go - therefore, if Paul is going, then Ted is definitely going well.