#10- All material bodies are divisible into parts, and every

srcline@noctrl.edu
LSAT Master

Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:50 pm
Points: 74

Hello,

So I think i diagrammed this right but, I wanted to make sure, but I still don't understand how to link these together. This is a MBT question correct? But I dont know what the inference is with this one. If somone can also please explain why E is wrong and the correct answer is D , that would greatly be appreciated.

MB DIP I
MB I
S (not) MB

This is as far as I got.

Thankyou
Sarah
Emily Haney-Caron
PowerScore Staff

Posts: 577
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:26 am
Points: 418

Hi Sarah,

This is a justify the conclusion question with conditional logic. You have the diagramming of the question right, and I think the place you got stuck is in not taking the contrapositives. I MB
Not imperfect is the same as perfect, because of the double negative. So, we have some reason to know the spirit is not a material body. The reason here must be connected to that contrapositive - the spirit must be perfect. It also follows that if the spirit is perfect, it is also indivisible. The problem with E is that it says EITHER, when it would have to be BOTH. Does that help?
srcline@noctrl.edu
LSAT Master

Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:50 pm
Points: 74

Hello Emily,

Why would I have to take the contra Postive of MB I?

Thankyou
Sarah
Clay Cooper
PowerScore Staff

Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:30 pm
Points: 103

Hi Sarah,

In short, you always have to consider the contrapositive, of each and every conditional rule you encounter. Actually, the conditional rule itself is really made up of its original form and its contrapositive; they are essentially indistinguishable, even if we tend to diagram them and think of them separately.

The test-makers consistently create questions that require you to consider the contrapositive of a conditional rule in order to find the correct answer, so I would encourage you to make a habit of immediately and automatically diagramming the contrapositive of every rule you diagram.

I have seen from some of your other posts that you are more than capable of finding the contrapositive, even of complicated rules with more than one term on one side of the arrow; that is a skill with which many students struggle, but you seem to have it down. I can assure you, from experience, that if you make a habit of doing it every time you encounter a conditional rule, it will pay off.