PT 52, Section 1, Number 5 LR question? Forum

[CardozoLaw09]

I didn't choose B) because the contrapositive suggests that Biba's neighbor does not have a child under the age of 6 if the pool is not open before noon. The pool not being open before noon is a sufficient condition for Biba's neighbor not having a child under 6? How does that make any sense lol?

Biba's neighbor's neighbor could have a child under the age of 6 and the pool would be open before noon. What's so special about Biba's neighbor having a child under the age of 6 that determines it whether the pool is open or not? I hope I'm making sense, I found this answer choice pretty strange. Also, what if Biba's neighbor did not want to go swimming at Barton's pool and she was on the only child under 6 - would the pool still be open?

Edit: Is it because if the pool is NOT open before noon then there would be no child under 6 in Biba's neighborhood? In other words, we can sufficiently say that Biba's neighbor does not have a child under 6 if the pool is closed and nobody else in the neighborhood does as well?

[CristopherG]

I didn't choose B) because the contrapositive suggests that Biba's neighbor does not have a child under the age of 6 if the pool is not open before noon. The pool not being open before noon is a sufficient condition for Biba's neighbor not having a child under 6? How does that make any sense lol?

The contrapositive is actually correct. Of particular significance is the inclusion of the word EVERYONE in the first sentence. If a neighbour has a child under the age of 6, that child is permitted to swim in the pool, being a member of the neighbourhood. So, if the pool opens at noon, and everyone in the neighbourhood can swim at the pool, nobody can be under the age of 6 years old, since people under the age of 6 cannot swim in the pool from 12:00 through closing.

To summarize succinctly;

(1) Everyone can swim in the pool.
(2) Children under the age of 6 cannot swim in the pool from 12 - closing

lead to conclusions

(i) therefore, if there is a child under the age of 6 in the neighbourhood, the pool must be open before 12. (Answer B) or;
(ii) therefore, if the pool opens at 12, there are no children under the age of 6 in the neighbourhood (contrapositive to answer B)

[03152016]

.

[BlaqBella]

Great question and great explanations.

[Theopliske8711]

This question got me also. It's really about reading the stimulus carefully. I got to the end of it and kind of forgot about the beginning (Any), even though I had "any" circled (D'oh!). There's not much logic you have to do to get the answer, just apply what you read in the stimulus.

I love how the LSAT uses logic to the hide the simplicity of so many of its answers. "A study conducted said that if this is correct then all of this applies, then we know this to be an effect" Assumption? The study is correct.

[sighsigh]

My formal logic explanation. Stimulus states:

12pm-5pm => 6+
~6+ => ~12pm-5pm (contrapositive)
5pm-closing => Adults
~Adult => ~5pm-closing (contrapositive)

(B) states <6
<6 => ~6+ => ~12pm-5pm
<6 => ~Adult => ~5pm-closing

The only time remaining is opening-12pm. We can infer <6 => <12pm, since everyone is permitted to swim at the pool. This is what (B) states. So (B) is correct.