PT #27 LR Forum

[ae28]

27.4.20 asks about Robbins passing judgment. I'm confused as to why A is the right answer: A says that in order to pass judgment, Robbins must either dismiss it OR praise it. But in the stimulus, it seems to me that she's unable to pass judgment because she only can dismiss and not praise it. Thus isn't praise AND dismissing required? By process of elimination, A is the right answer - but I just dont see it logically...

I tried Manhattan prep before posting this - it didn't help. Thanks!

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[ae28]

thank you - that was incredibly comprehensive and helpful.

[Binghamton1018]

This is actually a lesson in grammar. The way the answer choice is worded, it DOES mean praise AND dismissing is required.

Compare these two examples:

1) In order to pass judgment on Stuart's work, Robbins must be able either to dismiss it or to praise it.

2) In order to pass judgment on Stuart's work, Robbins must be able to dismiss it or praise it.

So it's kind of the word "either" in this case that makes it mean "both," (think of it like this: she has to be able to do "either one") but its not actually that easy - there are examples where it could have the word "either" but still only actually mean one or the other. Like this:

3) Either it will rain literally all day tomorrow or it won't rain at all.

See how in that one it couldn't be both?

Number 1 is saying she has to be able to do both (and that's answer choice A word for word). Number 2 is saying that she just has to be able to one or the other. Keep in mind, also, that on the LSAT the word "or" always includes the possibility of "both" - note how sometimes an answer choice will say "blah blah blah or blah blah blah BUT NOT BOTH." So number 2 includes the possibility of "both." But it doesn't outright say that it has to be both like 1 does. That is the only time that you don't have to worry about "both" aside from the weird examples like #3 I just wrote - but I haven't ever seen the LSAT have one like that that I can recall. You kind of have to use grammatical/common sense to a certain degree.

Also, the negation of 1 basically says she doesn't have to be able to do both, and if that was true, the argument is toast because we know she can dismiss it and thus its OK that she can't praise it - she can still pass judgment.

The negation of 2 says that she doesn't need to be able to do either one, which would also of course destroy the argument since it would make both criteria unnecessary to be able to pass judgment. And so number 2 would work as a necessary assumption as well, but its not really as "pretty" an answer choice - sorry I don't really know how else to describe it. I guess it just doesn't fit in with the rest of the argument as well as 1 does which is why 1 was the answer choice they put. Since number 2 kind of skips over how she can dismiss it.

Thank you for this, it was a big help!

[somethingElse]

Post removed...