- Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:07 pm
Thanks for the question! I don't think you would need to diagram this argument. It is probably best with an abstraction. Essentially, the argument goes:
Premise: Dana intended to do X.
Premise: X caused Y.
Conclusion: Dana intended to do Y.
The flaw here is that, even though you intended to do something that resulted in another outcome, that does not necessarily mean you intended to create that outcome. Answer choice (C) has that logic. It could be mapped out as:
Premise: Restaurant owner intended to take off menu item. (RO intended to do X)
Premise: Removal of menu item caused disappointment in Jerry. (X caused Y)
Conclusion: Restaurant owner intended to disappoint Jerry. (RO intended to do Y.)
Answer choice (E) on the other hand would look like:
Premise: Power plant raised water temperature. (PP caused X).
Premise: Whatever raised the temperature caused the decrease in fish (the power plant is what raised the temp). (If you caused X, then you caused Y.)
Conclusion: The power plant caused the decrease in fish. (PP caused Y).
This is actually a valid argument. It does not quite match the stimulus.
PowerScore LSAT/GMAT/SAT Instructor