## PT 25 Section 2 Question 22

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

Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:40 pm

### PT 25 Section 2 Question 22

Could someone help me out with this parallel question? For some reason I'm having a tough time getting a grasp on it. I wish I could give you guys a little bit more on my though process for this question but for some reason it just stumped me, it'll probably be something simple once it's pointed out to me. But anyway, help?

NaturalLawyer

Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

### Re: PT 25 Section 2 Question 22

This question was difficult for me too, but it helped me realize that I need to become better at translating an ordinary sentences into conditional statements.

Anyways, the stimulus takes:
(1) Whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow.
And then rephrases it into:
(2) No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.

The trick to is to translate (1) and (2) into conditional statements.

(1) becomes: IF the government does not support an artistic endeavor, THEN the government does not allow it (the artistic endeavor).
(2) becomes (with some modification with wording): IF an artistic endeavor is allowed, THEN the government supports it.

The trick now is to see the logical relationship between (1) and (2).

(1) and (2) are the contrapositives of each other. (The contrapositive of a conditional statement "If A then B" is "If not B, then not A". You just flip the conditional and negate both the antecedent and consequent. I'm sure you already know this, but it never hurts to review!)

Now you need to look and find an answer that takes a conditional statement and rephrases it into its contrapositive.

(A) does this by taking the conditional statement:
(1) IF a driver is not arrested, THEN he has not broken the law.
and taking its contrapositive:
(2) IF a driver has broken the law, THEN he is arrested.

What is tricky is that the stimulus does not use the same words in the original statement as in the rephrased statement. (artistic endeavor = creating art. government support = government subsidy.)

Anyways, I hope that helps! Good luck on your study.

sshaqsb

Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:40 pm

### Re: PT 25 Section 2 Question 22

You're right. I thought the two sentences were contrapositives of each other but like you said I had trouble diagramming the 2nd sentences. so I had difficult figuring out the correct answer. I need to work on making regular sentences into conditionals too. Did you do anything special to work on this? Thanks.

NaturalLawyer

Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:37 am

### Re: PT 25 Section 2 Question 22

I think the best practice for translating ordinary sentences into conditional statements is simply from the LSAT practice tests themselves. Many of the questions in every section of LR requires that we understand conditional logic.

One more concrete suggestion is to cut out those question from LR sections that involve sentences that are a bit convoluted or has complex phrasing, but which still need to be translated into a conditional form. Read it periodically and try to mentally map out the conditional form in your head. I think the more you do it, the better you'll get at it.

I have some training in logic from philosophy, but what is difficult about the LSAT is that the questions aren't always worded as precisely as it would be in analytic philosophy, which is what I'm most used to. But this is something that I've come to appreciate about the LSAT. The LSAT uses arguments that would more naturally occur in real life and we are forced to cope with the fact that most arguments are not made in a clear deductive form. The virtue of analytic philosophy is that the arguments are (usually) made in a clear and precise way. (I wish if more writing was like this.) But this does not help us to get trained in seeing arguments which may involve convoluted wording or complex phrases.

But to note: I haven't taken a single practice test past #30. I've mostly done #20-#30. Some have written that the LR sections become more clear and precise in the later exams.

Good luck!

Nikrall

Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:25 pm

### Re: PT 25 Section 2 Question 22

NaturalLawyer wrote:I think the best practice for translating ordinary sentences into conditional statements is simply from the LSAT practice tests themselves. Many of the questions in every section of LR requires that we understand conditional logic.

One more concrete suggestion is to cut out those question from LR sections that involve sentences that are a bit convoluted or has complex phrasing, but which still need to be translated into a conditional form. Read it periodically and try to mentally map out the conditional form in your head. I think the more you do it, the better you'll get at it.

I have some training in logic from philosophy, but what is difficult about the LSAT is that the questions aren't always worded as precisely as it would be in analytic philosophy, which is what I'm most used to. But this is something that I've come to appreciate about the LSAT. The LSAT uses arguments that would more naturally occur in real life and we are forced to cope with the fact that most arguments are not made in a clear deductive form. The virtue of analytic philosophy is that the arguments are (usually) made in a clear and precise way. (I wish if more writing was like this.) But this does not help us to get trained in seeing arguments which may involve convoluted wording or complex phrases.

But to note: I haven't taken a single practice test past #30. I've mostly done #20-#30. Some have written that the LR sections become more clear and precise in the later exams.

Good luck!
If you have experience with philosophy, you most likely have a broad range of knowledge. If you are good at logic you can actually bring in your experiences from day to day life and use them on the test. That is, oftentimes questions approximate real life and the answer is the same as something that would be said in real life. For example there is a question about why aren't government lawyers all terrible since they get paid less...and the reason (or at least part of the reason) is, as it is in real life, that the fringe benefits are better.

I wouldn't recommend bringing in outside knowledge unless you have a good enough handle on logic to be able to differentiate between what you can validly bring in and what you can bring in merely as a suggestion, tho.