## #20 - A poem is any work of art that exploits some of the

gen2871

Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:43 am
Points: 47

Hi dear LSAT Masters:

I got it wrong because I failed to recognized the biconditional relationship. Now that I understand the correct way of drawing the diagrams are as followings:

(WOA + Mc of L) P
(WOA + L, ~mc) N
(WOA + Mc of s, ~L) S
(~WOA + Mc of L) L

and combine first and second premise === N (WOA + L ~Mc) + (WOA + Mc of L) P
[N (Mc + L) WOA] N + P gives us the correct answer cho.

My question is how am I gonna be able to detect the biconditional as soon as I see one? I missed few other questions that involves biconditional relationships.

Thank you for advising. Looking forward to hearing back from any of the experts.
Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff

Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:18 am
Points: 436

gen,

Only the first statement is a biconditional. It is so because it is providing a definition of a poem. In other words, all poems have these qualities, and anything with these qualities is a poem. So a thing is a poem if and only if it has these qualities.

The second statement is not even a conditional, because it says what novels "may" be and what they "usually" lack. Conditionals are absolute statements.

The third statement again lacks the requisite necessity to count as a conditional.

The fourth statement, about limericks, contains a conditional (not a biconditional), but the part about "may exploit" is not a conditional, as that again lacks the requisite necessity. Further, you can't just drop that and still have a biconditional; if so, you'd be saying something like "a thing is a limerick if and only if it's not a work of art," which is not what that statement is saying. Instead, it's a conditional: "if something is a limerick, it's not a work of art."

Answer choice (C) then just depends on the first sentence. If a novel has the qualities sufficient to make something a poem, then it's a novel and a poem.

I think fully diagramming everything here will take more time than it's worth. Pay more attention to the connections between absolute statements. If you wanted to diagram, this would work:

(WOA + MCoL) P

N MCoL

S MCoL

L A

The "may" statements aren't even diagrammed here because I don't even know if anything that may be true IS true, even in some cases. So I would hesitate to diagram them even as the very weak A B.

Again, I don't think the diagramming is as helpful as a more intuitive understanding of the actual English expressions used.

Robert Carroll