So I think I got the conditionals down with this one
tax red adopted library discontinue str. hrs.
daily str. hrs discont. parents inconvenienced
I combined this as :if tax red adopted parents will be inconvenienced
So the gap is b/w whether the parents will be inconvenienced doesn't necessarily mean that the tax plan will be adopted?
So my contra + was : parents will not be inconvenienced tax plan not adopted
is this correct? So then D is the contra postive of this?
#14- If the proposed tax reduction package is adopted this
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
You're most of the way there - your diagram of the premises is perfect. The approach you are taking to analyze it, though, sounds more like a Flaw in the Reasoning approach - you're thinking about what's wrong with it. Instead, think not about what the premises don't prove, but about how you can close the gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises give you Tax Reduction --> Discontinue Hours --> Inconvenience. The conclusion says they won't do the tax reduction. How do we prove No Tax Reduction? Just like you did - add "No Inconvenience".
You're definitely on the right track! Well done.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
For this question I was really stuck between B and D. This is why I was so tempted by B: where did I go wrong ?
Tax reduction adopted ---> library discontinues story hrs--> parents greatly inconvenienced
Conclusion: tax reduction will not be adopted
We need the contapositive of the stimulus to conclude the tax will not get adopted .
B) library discontinues hrs --> parents greatly inconvenienced
If we take the contra positive of this statement we get tax will not be adopted.
D) tax reduction that would inconvenience parents --> will not get adopted .
Answer B is more like a restatement of what the stimulus tells us, that if a package causes discontinued story hours, parents are inconvenienced. But more than that is needed here. Answer D, as Adam has discussed above, gives us a link of inconvenience to not passing the tax package, i.e., inconvenience no adopting proposed tax package. (It was phrased above as something like "No inconvenience, so no tax package." But however it's phrased, either the way just described, or as "If it inconveniences parents, it will not be passed", it's largely the same thing.)
Hope this helps,
4 posts • Page 1 of 1