LSAT Gurus, Please Decipher This Simple Sentence (PT 17) Forum

[MagnumLifeStyle]

LSAT Gurus,

I've seen and read the explanations from Atlas LSAT, Kaplan, and other sources for Problem 10, Section 2, PT 17 (an assumption question).

The Prep Companies and other sources collectively point out that negating the answer choice destroys the argument, and I can totally see how that does so.

However, the answer choice seems to destroy the argument even when it isn't negated.

The argument goes something like this:

The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delievered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangeroues until it is washed......So the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit.

Answer Choice (A), the correct answer, states: The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

Answer Choice (A) states that the apple aren't washed after harvest but that they are washed before reaching the cafeteria. Thus, the answer choice, when not-negated, destroys the argument.

The answer choice, when negated ("The apples that the cafeteria sells are thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria) also destroys the question (as Atlas LSAT and Kaplan and other sources state) because 1) if the apples are thoroughly washed after harvest, that directly goes against the claim in the argument that the apples aren't washed and 2) if they're thoroughly washed, they shouldn't be covered in pesticide.

So my question is this: answer choice (A), when negated, hurts the argument and thus seems like the correct answer.
But even when it isn't negated, it still hurts the argument. So how can choice (A) possibly be the correct answer?

I'm guessing that I've misunderstood answer choice (A): The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

I've understood the above sentence to mean that the apples are not thoroughly washed after harvest but that they are thoroughly washed before reaching the cafeteria.

Is my understanding wrong?
I would really appreciate it if anyone can please help me understand this sentence.

Thanks!

[gdane]

I dont have the PT in front of me, what was the question?

[MagnumLifeStyle]

hey gdane5,

I've PM'd you the complete excerpt of the question.

If anyone else would like to see the full excerpt of the question stem and the answer choice, please PM me.

Thanks.

[namename]

LSAT Gurus,

I'm guessing that I've misunderstood answer choice (A): The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

I've understood the above sentence to mean that the apples are not thoroughly washed after harvest but that they are thoroughly washed before reaching the cafeteria.

Is my understanding wrong?
I would really appreciate it if anyone can please help me understand this sentence.

Thanks!

I think that your understand of that sentence is wrong. The "but" doesn't mean "but...are washed before reaching the cafeteria." It is part of a time delimiting clause, "From time A (picking) to time B (arriving)."

The argument structure is something like this:

1. Most fruit is sprayed with pesticides before harvest.
2. Answer: The fruit is not washed between harvest and arrival at cafeteria.
3. The cafeteria doesn't wash the fruit.
Therefore: The cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit.

[Nulli Secundus]

The claim in the question is not, "Apples are not washed at all" the claim is only "Cafeteria does not was the apples it sells". Thus, there is nothing in there against apples getting washed before they reach the cafeteria, which might be possible if (A) was not assumed. (What kind of shitty washing procedure would remove pesticides and still leave a greasy coating is beyond the scope )

[gdane]

I answered your question. Did it help or are you still confused?

[Nikrall]

LSAT Gurus,

I've seen and read the explanations from Atlas LSAT, Kaplan, and other sources for Problem 10, Section 2, PT 17 (an assumption question).

The Prep Companies and other sources collectively point out that negating the answer choice destroys the argument, and I can totally see how that does so.

However, the answer choice seems to destroy the argument even when it isn't negated.

The argument goes something like this:

The apples sold in this cafeteria are greasy. The cashier told me that the apples are in that condition when they are delievered to the cafeteria and that the cafeteria does not wash the apples it sells. Most fruit is sprayed with pesticides before it is harvested, and is dangeroues until it is washed......So the cafeteria is selling pesticide-covered fruit.

Answer Choice (A), the correct answer, states: The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

Answer Choice (A) states that the apple aren't washed after harvest but that they are washed before reaching the cafeteria. Thus, the answer choice, when not-negated, destroys the argument.

The answer choice, when negated ("The apples that the cafeteria sells are thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria) also destroys the question (as Atlas LSAT and Kaplan and other sources state) because 1) if the apples are thoroughly washed after harvest, that directly goes against the claim in the argument that the apples aren't washed and 2) if they're thoroughly washed, they shouldn't be covered in pesticide.

So my question is this: answer choice (A), when negated, hurts the argument and thus seems like the correct answer.
But even when it isn't negated, it still hurts the argument. So how can choice (A) possibly be the correct answer?

I'm guessing that I've misunderstood answer choice (A): The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria.

I've understood the above sentence to mean that the apples are not thoroughly washed after harvest but that they are thoroughly washed before reaching the cafeteria.

Is my understanding wrong?
I would really appreciate it if anyone can please help me understand this sentence.

Thanks!

Ohh, I see. I don't need the question. Yeah, name is right. Its not that the apples are not thoroughly washed after harvest, but that they are washed before reaching the cafeteria. Instead the sentence merely says that the during the point in time after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria, the apples are not washed.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

namename,

Could you please expand upon the idea that "but" can be time delimiting cause (I don't really understand this concept)?

[MagnumLifeStyle]

gdane5,

Thanks for your PM.
I can see how when the answer choice is negated, it weakens the argument and therefore seems like the correct assumption.
What I am (or was) confused about was how when it is not-negated, it still weakens the argument.

But namename claims that the "but" in the answer choice shouldn't be understood in the common sense of the word, but in a different way, as a delimiting clause. I'm having difficulty understanding that part.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

namename,

So are you saying that

The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria (equals in meaning to) The fruit is not washed between harvest and arrival at cafeteria. ?

[Nikrall]

namename,

So are you saying that

The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria (equals in meaning to) The fruit is not washed between harvest and arrival at cafeteria. ?

Yes he is. Or if he's not, thats what I am saying ;p.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

But how can the meaning of "but" possibly be "and"?

LeBron James did not score a goal after 1st quarter but before 3rd quarter -> this means LeBron scored a goal before the end of 3rd quarter.

So how can The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria possibly mean that the apples weren't washed between the time after harvest and before reaching the cafeteria?

[gdane]

youre confusing yourself way too much and this type of overthinking will kill you on the LSAT. Its very important to understand the assumption negation technique, but at the same time its not always necessary to use it such as with this question.

[gdane]

But how can the meaning of "but" possibly be "and"?

LeBron James did not score a goal after 1st quarter but before 3rd quarter -> this means LeBron scored a goal before the end of 3rd quarter.

So how can The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria possibly mean that the apples weren't washed between the time after harvest and before reaching the cafeteria?

The patron is assuming that because the cafeteria didnt wash the apples, the apples weren washed at all. The core belief in this assumption is that the apples werent washed at any time after the harvest, before or after arriving at the cafeteria.

[Nikrall]

But how can the meaning of "but" possibly be "and"?

LeBron James did not score a goal after 1st quarter but before 3rd quarter -> this means LeBron scored a goal before the end of 3rd quarter.

So how can The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria possibly mean that the apples weren't washed between the time after harvest and before reaching the cafeteria?

I'm not sure how I would interpret what you wrote about Lebron. But if you wrote it that "LeBron James did not score a goal after 1st quarter but before the 3rd quarter", then it would mean that LeBron did not score a goal between the 1st quarter and the 3rd quarter.

You seem to interpreting the "but" as "but rather" when here it actually means " and".

Also...you aren't overthinking it, you are just confused about the english. The good news is, this is an old LSAT and usually the English isn't this open to interpretation nowadays. They've gotten better about not including shit like this on recent tests.

[MagnumLifeStyle]

gdane,

Thanks for your warning about overthinking. Indeed, I've come to realize that too much thinking can really kill my chances (especially regarding time).

I'm pretty much in sync with your reasoning.
I completely agree with you that the core belief underlying the argument is that there's absolutely NO washing takes place at any time after the harvest, before or after arriving at the cafeteria.

But look at Answer Choice (A). It states that washing does take place before reaching the cafeteria. So how can this be the correct answer?

[MagnumLifeStyle]

Nikrall,

That's EXACTLY the problem.

Many of you Gurus here are arguing that "but" can mean "and."

I've checked the dictionary and I couldn't find a secondary meaning of the word "but" that can mean and.

If the Answer Choice had originally stated: The apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest and before reaching the cafeteria.

I would absolutely have no problem understanding the problem and also seeing how that answer choice is the correct answer. However, instead of "and" the LSAC used "but" and "but" usually means "but rather."

Applying the usual meaning of "but" Answer Choice (A) means that the apples were washed before reaching the cafeteria.

Applying the other meaning of the word (as you claim), everything makes perfect sense.

[namename]

That is indeed what I mean.

This usage is not very common -- it does show up sometimes in formal logic though.

gdane,

But look at Answer Choice (A). It states that washing does take place before reaching the cafeteria. So how can this be the correct answer?

I am confused about your thinking. Again, answer choice A states that the apples are not washed during the time indicated, after harvest to arrival.

[Cleareyes]

gdane,

Thanks for your warning about overthinking. Indeed, I've come to realize that too much thinking can really kill my chances (especially regarding time).

I'm pretty much in sync with your reasoning.
I completely agree with you that the core belief underlying the argument is that there's absolutely NO washing takes place at any time after the harvest, before or after arriving at the cafeteria.

But look at Answer Choice (A). It states that washing does take place before reaching the cafeteria. So how can this be the correct answer?

This is pretty simple.

The apples are washed after leaving the orchard but before arriving at the restaurant means that the apples are washed sometime between leaving the orchard and arriving at the restaurant.

Now it's just saying "The apples are NOT washed..."

It's an awkward construction but it clearly CAN mean that.

[namename]

Cleareyes is exactly right. Best explanation.

[Nulli Secundus]

Guess nobody saw what I wrote and about but - and thingie, you cant think that "but" out of the context there; its not a singular "but", instead a piece of;

[not ....... (after ...X... but ..... before Y)]

2 is after 1 but before 3. Simple innit?

[MagnumLifeStyle]

nullisecundus, namename, cleareyes, Nickrall and all others who've PM'd me,

thank you all for clariying the answer choice.

My mistake was interpreting the original answer choice (the apples that the cafeteria sells are not thoroughly washed after harvest but before reaching the cafeteria) to mean that the apples aren't washed after harvest, but they are washed before reaching the cafeteria.

Now, the correct way to interprete the answer choice is that it means the apples aren't washed after being harvested and before reaching the cafeteria.