PT 36 seciton 3 number 12.
narrowed it to A or B.
someone care to explain why A is correct. thanks.
PT 36 seciton 3 number 12. Forum
-
skip james
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 am
Re: PT 36 seciton 3 number 12.
This question really just tests your ability to understand (and quickly diagram) conditional statements, so if you're having trouble with that I recommend you practice conditional questions up the yin yang, so that on test day you are prepared.
For the time being, I'll go ahead and show you what this argument looks like diagrammed.
-----
Premise 1: VLaw --> VLimits
Premise 2: VLimits --> NOT knowifactionslegal
Conclusion: VLaw --> NOT Secure
----
So basically if we combine premise 1 and 2 we have this:
Vlaw --> Vlimits --> NOT know
But what we need in conclusion is a way for us to infer from 'Vlaw' all the way to 'NOT secure', except it isn't there in the premises. But that's good, since that means we now know what 'NOT secure' must be in the Gap or the Suppressed Premise that the author assumes (but doesn't state).
So to infer all the way to 'NOT secure' we lengthen the chain so that it reaches the new element in the conclusion:
Vlaw --> Vlimits --> NOT know ---> NOT secure
So our gap is:
NOT know --> NOT secure
and the contrapositive of our gap (which is commonly what LSAC will use as the correct answer for questions like these) is:
If secure ---> THEN know
------
You should also notice that answer choice B uses the word 'might' which conflicts with 'CANNOT' in the stimulus' conclusion, and thus cannot be used to connect the premises to the conclusion.
For the time being, I'll go ahead and show you what this argument looks like diagrammed.
-----
Premise 1: VLaw --> VLimits
Premise 2: VLimits --> NOT knowifactionslegal
Conclusion: VLaw --> NOT Secure
----
So basically if we combine premise 1 and 2 we have this:
Vlaw --> Vlimits --> NOT know
But what we need in conclusion is a way for us to infer from 'Vlaw' all the way to 'NOT secure', except it isn't there in the premises. But that's good, since that means we now know what 'NOT secure' must be in the Gap or the Suppressed Premise that the author assumes (but doesn't state).
So to infer all the way to 'NOT secure' we lengthen the chain so that it reaches the new element in the conclusion:
Vlaw --> Vlimits --> NOT know ---> NOT secure
So our gap is:
NOT know --> NOT secure
and the contrapositive of our gap (which is commonly what LSAC will use as the correct answer for questions like these) is:
If secure ---> THEN know
------
You should also notice that answer choice B uses the word 'might' which conflicts with 'CANNOT' in the stimulus' conclusion, and thus cannot be used to connect the premises to the conclusion.
