Preptest 48 Section 4 #21 Forum

[sdwarrior403]

I have this one as:

IUR and TSL ---> ~SIN
SUC ---> T
----------------------------
SUC ---> ~IUR and ~TSL


Why did the LSAT have the conclusion's necessary condition be a condition that could never be logically inferred with the correct answer? I know its splitting hairs, but the T ---> SIN chain is only going to give us ~IUR or ~TSL. Is there a reason why this question has not been removed? Or have I misunderstood this one?

[sdwarrior403]

Thread was nearing the next page of threads so I bumped it.

[Liquox]

i don't think people know what you're talking about. try posting the actual question

[sdwarrior403]

I have given the question location. I cannot post the actual question due to there being a copyright.

[flippacious]

This question is tough because the "variables" are wordy and the first sentence throws in the word "requires" in a way that makes conditionality confusing. I definitely didn't think it fit together correctly when I did this section timed. I ended up with (A) because "trust" was the odd variable out, and (A) is the only answer choice that mentions trust.

Here's my breakdown of stimulus:

Sentence one = Sincerity requires no lies. S --> ~L
Sentence two = If do not trust, do not succeed. ~T --> ~Suc, or Suc --> T
Sentence three = Therefore, if succeed, then must not lie. Suc --> ~L

So, you have the conclusion: Suc --> ~L
How can we get there? If we add (A), which is trust requires sincerity, or T --> S, we can get:

Suc --> T --> S --> ~L

[sdwarrior403]

I agree with what you stated but is it not true that the test writers made a mistake with the and-or situation in the conclusion?

[sdwarrior403]

Bump for an answer. The quick and short of my trouble is that i feel this answer choice gives us a chain to use relevant evidence, but the evidence is going to lead us to an or statement while the conclusion is an and statement. This would mean that we really do not have an answer choice that proves the conclusion to be true.

[VasaVasori]

.