to the top

#12 - It is clear that none of the volleyball players

Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:31 am
Points: 1,208

To parallel the reasoning in the stimulus, we need to understand exactly how the reasoning proceeds. The question we're asking about contains an argument using conditional reasoning, which can be diagrammed as follows:

    Premise: Volleyball :arrow: Sunburned
    Premise: At work today :arrow: NOT Sunburned
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion: At work today :arrow: NOT volleyball

The reasoning is logically valid. After taking the contrapositive of the first premise, we arrive at the following chain relationship, which justifies the conclusion reached:

    At work today :arrow: NOT Sunburned :arrow: NOT volleyball

So, we are looking for an argument in which the conclusion is deductively valid and provable as a transitive inference from a conditional chain relationship.

Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because the premise talks about TRF workers who were given the opportunity to purchase dental insurance, whereas the conclusion refers to everyone who is employed at TRF. The conclusion expands the scope of the argument beyond what is warranted by the premises.

Answer choice (B) - you should keep this as a contender, as it exhibits at least some of the elements we're looking for. Upon a second look, you should realize that this answer choice contains a Mistaken Negation:

    Premise: Promoted :arrow: Attend
    Premise: Manager :arrow: NOT Promoted
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion: Manager :arrow: NOT Attend

Answer choice (C) is incorrect right off the bat. Having a reputation for getting assignments in on time has no bearing on the conclusion.

Answer choice (D) is the correct answer choice, and can be diagrammed as follows:

[list]Premise: 2nd floor office :arrow: Work for Pres
Premise: Work for Pres :arrow: NO time off
------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: 2nd floor office :arrow: NO time off/list]

Since the conclusion is a logically valid transitive inference from the chain relationship established by the premises, it is correct.

Answer choice (E) can be eliminated relatively quickly, because the language used in the conclusion ("likely") does not match the certainty of the conclusion in the original argument. Furthermore, there is only one premise here, not two.
Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Test Preparation
PositiveThinker
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:02 pm
Points: 49

Whats tough about these sometimes is how the rearrange the premises and the conclusions. Thats what slows me down. Gotta get better! i got it right but this question took me a smooth 2 and a half minutes.
avengingangel
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:11 pm
Points: 218

so, D is only correct bc it's the only other valid argument (w/ the same certainties) out of the choices? they diagram differently, so that's why i thought it to be wrong (as the typical strategy w parallel questions)
JaredBeats
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 2:56 pm
Points: 8

I feel like they totally do this to confuse you. The following two arguments are the same, even though they "look" different:

    Argument 1
    A :arrow: B
    B :arrow: not C

    Therefore, A :arrow: not C

Compare to:

    Argument 2
    A :arrow: B
    C :arrow: not B

    Therefore, C :arrow: not A

They look different, right? But in the second argument, all you need to do is use the contrapositives of the second premise and the conclusion in order to see that, actually, the logic is the same. I'm sure the experts have a better explanation, but seriously - if it swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck (even if it doesn't look like a duck).