LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 mokkyukkyu
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: Aug 17, 2016
|
#28737
It doesnt talk about one leg, but it's just common sense right?
Just wanted to double check...
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#29154
Hi mokkyukkyu,

Thanks for your question.

The stimulus is structured as follows:
  • Premise: Elephant always has at least 2 legs on the ground.
    Conclusion: Elephant does not run.
To justify the conclusion, we need to establish the following:
  • Justify: At least 2 legs on the ground :arrow: NOT run
    Contrapositive: Run :arrow: Less than two legs on the ground
The correct answer choice (B) goes even further, suggesting that running requires the animal to have all four legs off the ground:
  • Answer choice (B): Run :arrow: NO legs on the ground
    Contrapositive: Any legs on the ground :arrow: NOT run
There is no problem with this, because we are looking for a premise that is sufficient to prove the conclusion, not an assumption necessary for the conclusion to be logically valid. Yes, answer choice (B) goes beyond the scope of our prephrase, but so what? If answer choice (B) is true, then clearly an animal that has at least one leg on the ground at any given time cannot run. The elephant falls into that category of animals, because it has at least two legs on the ground at any given time. So, it logically follows that the elephant cannot run.

Thanks!
 stephodigie
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2018
|
#49910
Could someone explain why E would not be correct? I am still very confused with this problem
 Malila Robinson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: Feb 01, 2018
|
#49988
Hi stephodigie,
Answer E talks about other animals feet in relation to walking, but the "hole" in the argument relates to how many feet you need to have on/off the ground in order to qualify as running. Since E does not address feet in relation to running it cannot be the correct answer.
Hope that helps!
-Malila
 hoyasaxa21
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Jul 16, 2020
|
#78060
Good morning!

Could someone please explain why answer choices (A), (C), and (D) are incorrect?

Thank you very much, and have a great day!

Chris
 Jeremy Press
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#78823
Hi Chris,

At the very most basic, answer choices (A), (C), and (D) do not prove (i.e. "Justify") the conclusion and so they don't satisfy the standard the question stem asks for. Below is a little more on why.

Answer Choice A: This answer has the wrong sufficient condition to prove that the Asian elephant cannot run. Our Asian elephant (from the premises) CAN accelerate. So this answer simply doesn't apply to the Asian elephant, and can't prove that it can't run.

Answer Choice C: This answer is irrelevant to the conclusion. Whether or not the Asian elephant's walking speed is the same as (or faster than) some animals' running speed doesn't tell us whether the elephant has the ability to run. It just means that the elephant is a relatively fast walker! Those Olympic speed-walkers aren't running, yet some of them are walking faster than my typical running speed (which is quite slow!). That doesn't prove the speed-walkers can't run--it just proves they're pretty fast at walking.

Answer Choice D: This answer is irrelevant to the conclusion. How common (or usual) it is in the animal world to have three feet on the ground while walking doesn't really tell us anything about those animals' (particularly the Asian elephant's) ability to run. It just tells us what they usually do when walking.

Hope this helps!
User avatar
 gingerale
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Feb 15, 2021
|
#86177
If there was an answer choice that provided that taking quicker and longer steps does not qualify as running, could this also be correct?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#86239
In my view, gingerale, no, that wouldn't be enough to justify this conclusion, although it would strengthen it by a lot. The problem with such an answer would be that it would fail to account for other things that might count as running. What if, for example, moving with two feet on the ground but NOT accelerating might be considered running? What if "running" could include moving at a constant pace over a long period of time? A stretch, I know, but we need to account for those sorts of outliers if we want to truly justify a conclusion. We are looking for total, absolute proof that eliminates any exceptions.

That said, your proposed answer would be the right answer IF there was no better choice (like answer B) available, because we are supposed to select the best answer even if it may be slightly imperfect.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.