Drills Lesson 2 HW, #16

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I have a question for drill number #16.

I know that the No one introduces the sufficient and negates the necessary (based on drill number 26). And except introduces the necessary and negates the sufficient.

However, if I follow this rules, I do not get the answer that is in the book:

No right-> No Chairman

CP: chariman-->right

Please let me know what is giong on in this example. I have read the explanations.

Regards,

Ellen

[Lucas Moreau]

Dear Powerscore,

I have a question for drill number #16.

I know that the No one introduces the sufficient and negates the necessary (based on drill number 26). And except introduces the necessary and negates the sufficient.

However, if I follow this rules, I do not get the answer that is in the book:

No right-> No Chairman

CP: chariman-->right

Please let me know what is giong on in this example. I have read the explanations.

Regards,

Ellen

Hello, Ellen, this is Lucas Moreau with PowerScore. I think I can help you with this. When it says "No one has the right to address the council except for the chairman," this can be rephrased as "Only the chairman has the right to address the council." The exact phrasing of LSAT questions and drills can get very tricky - it's often better to reword things in a more straightforward way. The LSAT test makers deliberately make the language as difficult as possible, but their tricky wording can usually be disentangled without too much effort.

If only the chairman has the right to address the council, this means that if someone has the right to address the council, that person must be the chairman. This is the same concept approached from two different angles. And conversely, if a person is not the chairman, that person does not have the right to address the council. Only the chairman can address the council, after all.

Therefore, the proper diagram is:
Right to Address Council -> Chairman
Not Chairman -> No Right to Address Council

Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for choosing PowerScore!

Best,
Lucas

[ellenb]

So, I this case the rules about No one and except do not quite work?

Thanks

Ellen

[Nikki Siclunov]

They absolutely do work. Let's take a simpler example:

No one except for college graduates can apply to law school.

Whenever you encounter "unless," "except," "until," and "without," you need to apply the Unless Equation: the condition modified by these words is the necessary condition; the remainder is negated to become sufficient. Thus, being a "college graduate" is a necessary condition. The remainder ("no one can apply to law school") must be negated to become sufficient, and so it becomes a positive condition:

Apply to law school College graduate

The same logic applies to the example you provided. Being a chairman is a necessary condition, as it is modified by the necessary condition indicator "except." The remainder must be negated to become sufficient: "no one" becomes "someone," and so we have:

Right to address Chairman

Let me know if this helps

[ellenb]

So, can we think of no one/none except as similar to no one/none but and if we do we can think of them as only.

No one except cats are allowed.

None but cats are allowed.

I can think of both examples as "only" cats are allowed. So, I do not have to think of what except is doing. I can just substitute no one except and non but with only.

Please let me know if I have the right thought process.

Thanks

Ellen

[Nikki Siclunov]

Indeed, you can substitue "no one except" and "none but" with "only": they all serve the purpose of necessary condition indicators

[tiancheng]

Indeed, you can substitue "no one except" and "none but" with "only": they all serve the purpose of necessary condition indicators

Hello, I have a question regarding to the word "No" in the beginning of the sentence. As question #3 instructed "No" in the beginning modified the necessary condition which is chairmen, then would this be RAC (Right to Address Council) ------> No Chairman?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Tiancheng,

Good question. Perhaps a good way to evaluate this question would be to ask: who has the right to address the council?

The only person who has the right to address the council is the chairman, so your diagram looks mostly good except you need to drop the "no."

• If someone has the right to address the council, then he is the chairman.
  
  Right to address council Chairman

The syntax here is:

• No one...except

The phrase that follows "no one" is the not-negated sufficient condition: No one "has the right to address the council"

The phrase that follows "except" is the non-negated necessary condition: except "the chairman"

• right to address the council the chairman

Similar syntactical constructions include but are not limited to:

• None/no one...but
  None/no one...save
  None/no one...with the exception of
  None/no one...outside of

I hope this helps!