Top Law Schools

PrepTest C, Section II, Question #22:

I cannot figure out the reasoning they provide in the explanation to this question...

They identify the conclusion and then restate it using "without" and I don't see how the two statements are the same?! So any clarifcation on this would be incredible helpful!

As I understand the stimulus, the first statement is: Home-->not House, and the second statement is: House-->not Home
But I feel like they may not necessarily be conditional statements!?
and the conclusion is (based on "without" restatement in explanation): not House-->Home, but according to the "not required" statement in the stimulus, it doesn't even seem like a freakin conditional relationship!

The question asks about the relationship between the conclusion and the claim of not Home-->House (which, accordingto the explanation, is the second statement in the stimulus!)--so my diagram above of 2nd statement is incorrect according to this!

PLEASE, ANY help or clarification on this problem would be amazing

Is it the same problem? http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=113816

I may be able to help, but I would need the question and I don't have superprep.

Yes, it's the same one from that post.

I just PMed you the text... This problem is the single LSAT question I've encountered that I haven't been able to figure out--so any clarification/input would be incredibly helpful!

Okay, the conclusion here is that being at home is not required for being in one's house.

This isn't really a conditional relationship -- it's the denial of a conditional relationship.

In other words, it's saying that this statement:

Being at home is required for being in one's house (InHouse --> InHome)

Is not necessarily true. In other words, that it's possible that being at home is not required for being in one's house. Ie, that you could be in your house without being at home (Sorry if that seems like I'm repeating myself, it's just a crucial point that can be understood from different directions).

Now, what's the reasoning for this? Well, the argument presents two statements:

a. one can be at home, without being in one's house (backyard, for example).
b. one can be in one's house, but not at home (when renting a property out, for example).

But really, only the 2nd statement here is actually relevant to the argument -- the evidence that shows that you can be in your house, but not at home. This is what actually shows that being at home is not required for being in one's house.

The first statement is largely irrelevant. Just because you can be at home, but not inside your house doesn't mean that being in your home isn't required for being in your house. In other words, being at home could be a requirement for being in your house, even if you can be at home without being inside your house (given, that's it'd be a requirement).

Symbolically, the conditional statement of: "InHouse --> InHome" is completely consistent with the possibility of someone being InHome, but ~InHouse. Thus, the first statement doesn't do anything to prove that conditional statement is not necessarily true.

The 2nd statement, however, shows that it could be true that one is InHouse, but ~InHome. This runs directly against the conditional of "InHouse --> InHome", which shows that the conditional is not necessarily true.

The question asks about the relationship between the conclusion and the first statement (which is irrelevant). Answer choice (C) highlights that the statement is compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion -- that is, that it has no bearing on the conclusion one way or another.

Hope this helped?