# LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

Alex Bodaken
• PowerScore Staff
• Posts: 136
• Joined: Feb 21, 2018
#45263
Harvoolio,

I think you are actually quite close to working this out for yourself - which is awesome. Hopefully I can help a bit.

We have a couple of conditional statements:

(S) Effective -> (N) Conveys message
(S) Humorous -> (N) Conveys message, Attract attention

These statements can't really be chained in any way. But the flaw in the answer is that it treats a sufficient condition (humorous) as being the only possible sufficient condition that could convey a message. But for all we know, there could be plenty of other ways to convey a message and be "effective." You are correct when you say that if (c) were flipped, it would be a flaw: it does treat a sufficient condition (humorous) as necessary...when it is not. It doesn't say that conveying a message is a sufficient condition. I hope that helps!

AB
harvoolio
• Posts: 64
• Joined: Apr 25, 2018
#45309
Thanks Alex. I ask these hypothetical questions to see if my underlying grasp of the logic is sound.

So, Alex, even if answer choice (c) were reversed it would still be incorrect because treating a sufficient condition for an advertisement's being effective as if it were a necessary condition" would be creating another necessary condition (i.e. If an advertisement is effective it must convey its message and hold people's attention long enough to convey a message), but this extra condition still would not be the flaw, because even so the stimulus is relying upon (a) "that nothing but humor can meet the one criteria (convey its message as stated in the stimulus) or these now two criteria in order to conclude that "Humorous television advertisements are the only effective ones."

Is this correct? Thanks.
Alex Bodaken
• PowerScore Staff
• Posts: 136
• Joined: Feb 21, 2018
#45399
Harvoolio,

I am sorry if my last response was confusing - I am saying that if, in fact (C) were reversed and read "It treats a sufficient condition for an advertisement’s being effective as if it were a necessary condition" it would be a flaw (and therefore, correct). This is because "humorous" is a sufficient condition, but it is not necessary - i.e., there are potentially other ways for an advertisement to convey its message. But since (C) reads the way it does, it is not a correct answer, and (A) is correct.

Thanks,
Alex
cspertus
• Posts: 7
• Joined: Nov 03, 2020
#82780
I had a quick question that isn't directly related to the answer choices but I just wanted to confirm what conclusions could be drawn from the given premises.

Conclusion: Effective humorous
Premise: humorous convey message

Am I correct that we can't conclude much from these statements... we still cannot conclude whether or not some effective ads are humorous (because humorous and efficacy may not overlap although both must convey messages).
We can only conclude that some ads that aren't humorous are ineffective: /H /IE.... right?
cspertus
• Posts: 7
• Joined: Nov 03, 2020
#82781
cspertus wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:02 pm I had a quick question that isn't directly related to the answer choices but I just wanted to confirm what conclusions could be drawn from the given premises.

Conclusion: Effective humorous
Premise: humorous convey message

Am I correct that we can't conclude much from these statements... we still cannot conclude whether or not some effective ads are humorous (because humorous and efficacy may not overlap although both must convey messages).
We can only conclude that some ads that aren't humorous are ineffective: /H /IE.... right?
And we cannot conclude whether or not humorous ads are effective... just because they both bring about the same necessary conditions does not imply overlap, correct?
KelseyWoods
• PowerScore Staff
• Posts: 1080
• Joined: Jun 26, 2013
#82821
Hi cspertus!

You are correct that we cannot really conclude much from these statements. "Convey message" is just something that is necessary for both humorous ads and effective ads, but we cannot connect "humorous" to "effective" just because they are both sufficient for "convey message." There doesn't have to be any overlap between these two terms.

Here are the things we know must be true based on the premises:

Premise: humorous convey message
MBT: humorous convey message
MBT: humorous convey message
MBT: convey message humorous
MBT: convey message humorous
MBT: convey message humorous

So, yes, as you stated, the only real way to connect any of these statements is to say:

Good job analyzing those conditional relationships!

Best,
Kelsey
cspertus
• Posts: 7
• Joined: Nov 03, 2020
#82916
KelseyWoods wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:00 am Hi cspertus!

You are correct that we cannot really conclude much from these statements. "Convey message" is just something that is necessary for both humorous ads and effective ads, but we cannot connect "humorous" to "effective" just because they are both sufficient for "convey message." There doesn't have to be any overlap between these two terms.

Here are the things we know must be true based on the premises:

Premise: humorous convey message
MBT: humorous convey message
MBT: humorous convey message
MBT: convey message humorous
MBT: convey message humorous
MBT: convey message humorous

So, yes, as you stated, the only real way to connect any of these statements is to say:

Good job analyzing those conditional relationships!

Best,
Kelsey
Hi Kelsey!

Thank you so much for your response; super helpful. I guess I just have one follow up... if we cannot actually conclude from the premises that humorous ads are effective (let alone the only effective ones), isn't the author making a mistake... a mistaken reversal (by assuming convey message effective in order to arrive at the conclusion that humorous effective)? How can he say that humorous TV ads are the only effective ones when we don't even know if humorous ads are effective, period?

I see how A is the mistake if the premises had proven that humorous ads actually were effective but don't understand how that is the answer choice otherwise.
Jeremy Press
• PowerScore Staff
• Posts: 945
• Joined: Jun 12, 2017
#83747
Hi cspertus,

There's definitely a dual flaw here, which you occasionally see in these types of questions. First, there's the Mistaken Reversal you point out (the reversal through which the author illicitly creates the chain: Humor ---> Convey Message ---> Effective). Second, there's the additional Mistaken Reversal (relying on the first one) through which the author concludes that humor is necessary to effectiveness. Both are mistakes. Both could be described in the answer. Answer choice A focuses on the second flaw. That doesn't mean it's a wrong answer. It just means it didn't describe every flaw present in the stimulus. But it's not necessary for a Flaw correct answer to describe or reference every flaw in the stimulus, so the answer still works.

I hope this helps!

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