#18 - Psychologist: Phonemic awareness, or the knowledge

[James Finch]

Hi Oneshot,

Yes, your diagram is correct.

As noted, the first couple of sentences in the stimulus give us the conditional:

Read Alphabetic Language (RAL) Phonemic Awareness (PA) + Symbolic Representation of Sounds (SR). Then we're given a group, whole-language method learners (WL), which emphasizes phonemic awareness; some of of the WL students learn to read alphabetic languages. So as you note, we can diagram out:

WL RAL PA + SR

Meaning that at least some (ie not none) WL students learn both the phonemic awareness emphasized by whole language awareness and the symbolic representation of sounds by letters. Answer choice (D) describes this inference, albeit in an awkward double negative way ("doesn't prevent").

Good job!

[mrdmass725]

After reading the explanations I am still unclear about why answer choice B is wrong. Is it wrong because It is saying that only one of the necessary conditions are met because you need to know how sounds are represented and the knowledge that spoken language can be broken into specific sounds to met the requirement for learning a alphabetic language?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi mrdmass725!

It's not that only one necessary condition is met, because, really, it's not the necessary conditions that have to be met. Only meeting sufficient conditions allows us to make further inferences. Even if both necessary conditions were met, that still wouldn't prove that the sufficient condition must be true.

You can diagram the stimulus this way:

Read an alphabetic language knowledge that spoken language can be broken into component sounds + learn how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters

There are two things necessary for reading an alphabetic language. But having one or even both of those conditions met tells us nothing. If we know we have the sufficient condition we can slide to the end of the arrow and we know the necessary condition(s) must also be true. But if we have the necessary conditions? The sufficient condition could be true but it doesn't have to be. That's why the arrow only goes from the sufficient to the necessary and not the other way around.

Answer choice (B) would be diagrammed this way ("When" is a sufficient indicator):

Learn how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters Read an alphabetic language

That relationship is backwards from the one in our stimulus. One necessary condition, both necessary conditions, it doesn't matter. Having the necessary condition(s) does not prove anything about the sufficient condition.

For further reading on Mistaken Reversals, check out this blog post: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/how-to ... reasoning/

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[PresidentLSAT]

Hi,

This question took me an hour and I'm still not fully sold. I tried analogizing it to see if it will help. Can somebody let me know if I captured the logic:

To be a supermodel means you’re a commercial model and a high fashion model. IMG model management, which books commercial modeling jobs for its clients has a roster full of supermodels.

D. basically says IMG doesn’t prevent its models from being represented by other management companies-which is inferrable. That they are supermodels doesn’t necessarily mean IMG is what propelled them to that status.

E. Can’t be inferred because it’s saying IMG books high fashion jobs for them. There’s no support for that.


They’re supermodels because they’re not prevented from outside representation which books them high fashion jobs. Inferring IMG booked them those jobs when the stimulus only says, Whole Language emphasizes one portion of the necessary requirement will be a reach.

I think the tip here is playing it safe when it comes to Inference questions and taking a double look at extreme wording.

[Adam Tyson]

Your analogy is pretty good and very helpful, PresidentLSAT! I'd change it just slightly, though:

D says IMG doesn't prevent its models from doing high fashion jobs. Maybe IMG books them, maybe some other company does, maybe the models represent themselves, but being represented by IMG is not an impediment to doing high fashion.

And it isn't that they ARE supermodels because they are not prevented from taking those jobs, but IF they are supermodels then it must be true that they are not prevented from taking them.

Great work! I like this and might steal use it the next time I have to explain it to one of my tutoring students!