Sorry for such a late response, but I wanted to give myself time to forget about this question before revisiting it. With that said, I came back to it today and I was able to nail the right answer, so I think finally understand.
thanks for your help
#9 - Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no
This question I was super confused if you could explain why all the answers choices that'd be great.
I choose b) don't understand why that's wrong. And don't really see why d) is right.
I went back and diagrammed it
CE ---->~STP----> UE
So the link between Not Supporting Tax Plan and understanding economics is his assumption. But I really still don't the common sense explaination behind this.
Here's a quote from earlier in the thread explaining in simple terms the issue with each answer choice:
Let me know if you still need help! This is a tricky question and I'd be happy to work with you on it.
Hi Jen, thanks for the reply.
When I first read this question, the first flaw that came to my head was that we don't know anything about people who don't understand economics so couldn't it be that they have no chance. In that sense I'm not sure why it's incorrect, like on a common sense basis. Could you provide me with a life example?
I reworked this question and diagrammed
CE ---> ~ STP (missing link) TUE ----> ~STP
So in that sense I assumed whatever would be the missing link and negated the necessary condition.
You mentioned it's the opposite of the conclusion.
C: CE ----> TUE
Answer B:. TUE ----> ~ CE
Is this what you meant?
A) I understand restates the premise, so that's gone
C) He never really said this
E) not sure why this is incorrect either
Let's do a quick recap of the analysis to be certain we're parsing this stimulus correctly:
Let's see if we can determine where the connection broke down.
This is based on the mistaken reversal *STP TUE*. The premises state TUE STP. The correct idea is that if you truly understand economics, then you don't support the tax plan. The incorrect idea is that *if you don't support the tax plan, then you truly understand economics.* How could we describe this error? How could we say that *STP TUE* is incorrect. The author thinks that not supporting the tax plan is sufficient to know that you truly understand economics. This is a mistaken reversal. The author ignores the possibility that there could be people who do not support the tax plan who do not truly understand economics. This is what's in answer choice (D). This statement in answer choice (D) explains how not supporting the tax plan is not sufficient to establish that you truly understand economics.
The reason why answer choice (E) is wrong is that it does not describe the flaw we have identified in our analysis. Answer choice (E) describes the following flawed assumption: "People who have no chance of being elected must truly understand economics" (CE TUE)
However, the author never makes this assumption. This connection doesn't come up. So while answer choice (E) describes a mistaken conditional statement, the problem is that it describes a mistake that the author doesn't make. Since we have to identify the flaw in the author's reasoning, and this is not a flaw in the author's reasoning, this cannot be the correct answer.
I hope this helps!
My thinking on this question was that that the author was making a mistaken negation of the first premise, which I thought (C) undermined. Where am I going wrong in this analysis?
The problem with that analysis, LSATscrub, is that "some do not" does not negate "some do". In this case, the author is trying to show that only people who understand economics have a chance, but that doesn't mean that they ALL do, just that they are the only ones who do. So, some people with that understanding are the ONLY ones who have a chance. Answer C tells us that there are also some people in that group who don't stand a chance, and that's fine - some do and some don't. Those statements are compatible with each other, like "some people like anchovy pizza and some do not". (The ones that do not are wrong, but that's a topic for another thread)
Your analysis should instead start with a focus on the conclusion - the author thinks that "only someone who truly understands economics" has a shot at getting elected. That language puts "truly understand economics" to the right of a conditional arrow - it's a necessary condition. Put another way, if you stand a chance, THEN you have that understanding. The flaw, then, is failing to recognize that the alleged necessary condition may not actually be necessary. Maybe someone has a chance (the supposed sufficient condition) that doesn't have that understanding (the purported necessary condition). Look for an answer about someone who has a chance but does NOT understand! Only answer D provides that relationship.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam