#22 - Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s

[ieric01]

Hello,

I had trouble eliminating B. After a bit of analysis, I think I may have gotten it down. Here's what I got:

====

B) is a tricky one.

We know Franklin and Penn have exemplary records, so they’re both eligible for the award.

Now, Franklin saved a child and in doing so, he went beyond the reasonable expectations of a PO. Therefore, he “should” receive the award.

However, with Penn, we’re told he saved a child but did NOT go above the reasonable expectations of a PO. Now you'd probably disqualify Penn for the award but that would be wrong.

Why?

Because the principle gives us the criteria for who “should” get the award, not who “shouldn’t.” Also, it doesn’t say it’s the ONLY way to get the award, it’s just one of the ways. Perhaps there are other reasons why an eligible police officer “should” get the award, even though he may not have gone beyond the call of duty.

For example, what if the child Penn saved was the Mayor’s grandson?

Then, he might be deserving of the award, right?

Anyway, the point is we can’t, with certainty, disqualify Penn from NOT getting the award. For that reason, B) wouldn’t be sufficient to lead to the conclusion, so it has to be eliminated.

[chiickenx]

Can someone tell me whats wrong with my reasoning? I only got (A) through elimination and luck…. I cant exactly justify why (A) is the correct answer because I dont think I can agree with the assumption that if you should receive the award, you are eligible… For example, you are eligible for presidency if and only if you have an exemplary record of public service. If you are eligible for presidency, insightful ideas for economic and social reforms, and intend to implement universal health care, you should be president. Suppose Oprah does not have an exemplary record of public service. That implies not eligible for presidency. But its not clear to me how you can infer that Oprah should not be the president…. Like its not common sense that whether you should receive an award or be president depends on whether you are eligible…. Eligibility and should X seem to be two independent things....

Like i get that whether you should receive an award entail whether you should be eligible. But whether or not you are actually eligible, i think is independent of whether or not you should receive an award....

[Adam Tyson]

ieric01, your analysis of answer B is perfect! Just because Penn did not go beyond reasonable expectations does not mean he should not get the award. That would be a Mistaken Negation of that conditional relationship. Well done!

chiickenx, I think you may be overthinking this one a bit. We can't afford on this test to bring in too much outside information and get into a debate with the answers in that way. Yes, in the real world, we could argue that someone who is not eligible for something ought to get it anyway, but that requires us to bring to the test a sort of moral or ethical argument based on our outside info. But even to the extent that we may agree with that assessment, we have to stick to the facts we are given, and we have to always remember the directions, which tell us to pick the best answer from among the five choices we are given. Selecting answer A using that test should not be about luck, but about a process of elimination, because none of the other answers comes close. Basically, don't reject an answer just because it is imperfect and is open to attack based on outside information. It's okay not to love that answer, but you still have to pick it because it is better than the other four.

[PresidentLSAT]

Hi Powerscore,

Can someone help me,

I've read thoroughly through the focrum-it still doesn't make sense. A is fully justified because Frank checked all the boxes while Penn, by not having an exemplary record, isn't even eligible.

I'm not sure if the explanations for B make sense or another defense for LSAT because it's their question.

In B, they both start of good:

exemplary records: ✓
Franklin, in saving a child from drowning exceeded expectations: Here's your trophy
Penn, despite saving a child from drowning, was within his duties as an officer: It's justifiable to conclude that Penn doesn't get an award because he failed to meet the requirements.

[Robert Carroll]

President,

Why should Penn not get an award? Answer choice (B) shows that Penn did not exceed what could reasonably be expected in that act. But that's a sufficient condition get getting the award. So if it's absent...why can't Penn get the award? We have no idea what else Penn did, nor what other conditions might be sufficient to show that Penn should get an award. Since we're trying to Justify the conclusion, we'd better be sure that Penn definitely can't get the award, but we have no basis for that.

Adam addresses that fact that answer choice (B) involves a Mistaken Negation in the post above yours.

Robert Carroll

[holy115]

I understand the reasoning behind why B is incorrect - as per B we surely know that Franklin should receive the award, while we can't say Penn necessarily SHOULD NOT receive one.

My question is, if we were to apply the same logic to answer choice A, can we really say that Penn SHOULD NOT receive an award because she does not have an exemplary record? My thought process is as below:

We only know that "if a person is eligible for the award and he/she did something that saved someone's life beyond expectation, then he/she should get the award."
If the above sentence is correct (It seems like the Complete Question Explanation by the Administrator doesn't include 'eligibility' as a sufficient condition in the second diagram. But, I thought that 'eligibility' is indeed a sufficient condition), isn't it a mistaken negation to say that if Penn is not eligible then Penn SHOULD NOT receive an award?

I thought it made more sense to explain answer choice A by saying that the word 'eligibility' itself implies a biconditional relationship with whether he/she should receive the award, thus it is true to say "if not eligible, then should not receive an award."

Q1. Do you think that 'eligibility' is not one of the sufficient conditions for 'should receive an award?'
Q2. Do you think that 'eligibility' implies a biconditional relationship by the word itself?
Q3. What is the correct negation of 'should receive'? Is it 'not necessarily receive rather than 'should not receive'?

Thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi holy115!

To your Q1 and Q2, it's possible that you could create an additional step/conditional statement using the word "eligible" as a variable on its own.

If I understand your Q1 correctly, I think eligibility would be a necessary condition in that context rather than a sufficient one:

should receive an award eligible (to receive an award)

That is, if someone should receive an award, then the person is eligible to receive one.

To your Q3, it could potentially depend on the context and how the word "should" is being used. I'll make up an example to give it more traction: "If the dog fetches the stick, then the dog should receive a bone." Taking the contrapositive of this will convey the same thing, while also negating the "should" part of this statement:

should receive a bone dog fetches the stick

The most direct, albeit a bit awkward, way to phrase this is: "If it is not the case that the dog should receive a bone, then it's not the case that the dog fetched the stick."

can we really say that Penn SHOULD NOT receive an award because she does not have an exemplary record?

Yes, Penn should not because of the first sentence: "A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise." Penn is not eligible for the award, and the stimulus goes on to connect eligibility to whether the person should receive an award ("an officer eligible for the award ... should receive the award if").

Finally, if you have PowerScore's course books, you might consider looking at Lesson 2. The beginning of that lesson goes in-depth into logical opposition and negating statements, which is a quite helpful resource to review.

[holy115]

To your Q1 and Q2, it's possible that you could create an additional step/conditional statement using the word "eligible" as a variable on its own.

If I understand your Q1 correctly, I think eligibility would be a necessary condition in that context rather than a sufficient one:

should receive an award eligible (to receive an award)

That is, if someone should receive an award, then the person is eligible to receive one.

So, would this be because of the meaning of the word or the structure of the second sentence? If 'an officer eligible for the award' is considered as a necessary condition because of the structure of the second sentence, then how is 'who did something exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer' considered differently (i.e. as a sufficient condition) in the original explanation by the administrator??

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

It's because of the meaning of the word "eligible," Holly. Eligibility is a prerequisite for receiving something. Think about getting a driver's license. In order to receive a driver's license, you must pass the driver's test. However, to be eligible for a driver's license, you must be at least 16. It doesn't matter if you can pass the test if you haven't met the eligibility requirements. Eligibility is required to receive the award here.

Hope that helps!