to the top

Lesson 14: General

T.B.Justin
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:57 pm
Points: 175

Hey,

I have a question regarding the missing links when removing a premise and what would suffice for validity:

P(1): A :arrow: B
P(2): B :arrow: C
P(3): C :arrow: D
C(1): A :arrow: D

If we remove premise (1), are these all the missing links:

A :arrow: B
Not B :arrow: Not A

Further, for a weaken question, would we need to find an answer choice that A or B could likely not occur, or perhaps that B is likely to occur only if A cannot occur.

Also, for a strengthen, under the same pre-tense, find an answer choice that A or B is likely to occur, or perhaps that A's occurrence is unlikely even when B's occurrence is unlikely.

Finally, for an assumption, to defend the argument, we need to find an answer choice that, I could use some help with this one.


Thanks, I must master this test, I appreciate your time.
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 2998
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:18 pm
Points: 2,997

Hi T!

I've answered your questions below:

T.B.Justin wrote:Hey,

I have a question regarding the missing links when removing a premise and what would suffice for validity:

P(1): A :arrow: B
P(2): B :arrow: C
P(3): C :arrow: D
C(1): A :arrow: D

If we remove premise (1), are these all the missing links:

A :arrow: B
Not B :arrow: Not A

If you need/intend to connect all the elements, then yes. If skipping elements as possible (which happens too), then A :arrow: C and its contrapositive would also work :-D



T.B.Justin wrote:Further, for a weaken question, would we need to find an answer choice that A or B could likely not occur, or perhaps that B is likely to occur only if A cannot occur.

Assuming all the steps above (A through D) are present, then just killing any one of the statements would call the conclusion into question. For example, if I showed C wasn't necessary to B, that would hurt the argument. Think about it like a real chain—if any one of the links breaks, the whole thing falls apart.



T.B.Justin wrote:Also, for a strengthen, under the same pre-tense, find an answer choice that A or B is likely to occur, or perhaps that A's occurrence is unlikely even when B's occurrence is unlikely.

Again assuming all the steps above (A through D) are present, then just helping any one of the statements would help the conclusion.


T.B.Justin wrote:Finally, for an assumption, to defend the argument, we need to find an answer choice that, I could use some help with this one.

You'd want to find an answers that showed any necessary element was indeed necessary. In other words, protect the basic integrity of the chain. That could very well take the form of showing that none of the relationships are backwards or invalid (meaning they are correct as is, and the answer would show that no relationship is backwards or no relationship is invalid).

Thanks!
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
T.B.Justin
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:57 pm
Points: 175

Hey Dave,

I am confused and am enjoying playing with these conditionality argument forms. I have a question regarding the form below and whether or not this would be a form where an assumption/justify answer would be generated:

Remove a premise: (Not C)

P: A :arrow: B
P: B :arrow: C
C: Not A

I came up with:
Not C
Not C :arrow: Not A
A :arrow: C

Then, I had the thought, hold on, this wouldn't be an assumption/justify answer that the author would make, since the conclusion is the contrapositive.

Thank you, I value your input and time.