LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5848
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#84443
Complete Question Explanation


Justify the Conclusion—Formal Logic. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus contains a conclusion. Therefore, argumentation is
present and the chances of a Must Be True question appearing are diminished. Indeed, a Justify the
Conclusion question is presented, and when combined with the complex relationship in the stimulus,
the result is a challenging problem. The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

          C = chordates
          T = tracheophytes
          P = member of Pteropsida
          H = member of family Hominidae
LR1.PNG
Given that we need to justify the conclusion, try to solve the problem mechanistically:

     1. The conclusion contains the new element H, and thus the correct answer should contain H.
     This analysis eliminates answer choices (C) and (E) from contention.

     2. The element P is common to both the conclusion and the premises, and the correct answer
     should not contain P. Unfortunately, this has no impact on the three answer choices in
     contention.

     3. The premises contain elements C and T that are unconnected to the conclusion. Again,
     answer choices (A), (B), and (D) contain one or the other.

Based on the analysis above, we should expect the correct answer to either link H and C or to link H
and T. Given that C would involve a longer chain of deduction, you should suspect that the correct
answer will link H and C. The question becomes what is the exact relationship that will connect the
premises to the conclusion? The first relationship that comes to mind is H T. But the only
answer that involves H and T is answer choice (A), and the relationship there is the opposite of what
is needed. Answer choice (A) would not lead to the conclusion and is therefore incorrect.

The elimination of answer choice (A) leaves two answers that involve H and C. Answer choice (B)
stipulates that all Hs are Cs, and answer choice (D) stipulates that no Hs are Cs. Keep in mind that
with a Justify question you can simply add the answer choice under consideration to the premise
diagram and then check to see if one of the inferences that follows matches the conclusion. If
so, then that answer is correct. If not, then the answer is incorrect. Let’s use that method with the
remaining two answer choices:

The addition of answer choice (B) to the premises leads to the following diagram:
LR2.PNG
Because no inference can be made from H to T, the diagram above does not allow for an inference to
be made between H and P. Therefore, this answer choice is incorrect.

This is an extremely challenging question because it contains a Formal Logic structure that is
complex. The addition of the Justify question forces you to find the missing link, but by quickly
eliminating answer choices that do not match the Justify paradigm, you can narrow the field to two
contenders and then make a decision. But, as you can see, you must have complete control of the
diagrams and you must be able to make inferences quickly, accurately, and confidently. This is not
for the faint-hearted or lazy!
 srcline@noctrl.edu
  • Posts: 243
  • Joined: Oct 16, 2015
|
#21568
Hello

I do not understand the linkage in this problem. I had originally diagrammed this problem as:

Premise 1: not C :arrow: T
Premise 2 : P :arrow: T
Conclusion: not P :arrow: H

Thankyou
Sarah
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1774
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#21597
Sarah,

The first premise is not diagrammed correctly. As you have it, it says that anything not a chordate must be a tracheophyte. The conditional is actually:

chordate :arrow: tracheophyte

The conclusion has the same problem. It should be:

Pteropsida :arrow: Hominidae

"No A are B" statements have the negation on the necessary condition side.

Hope this helps!

Robert Carroll
 cboles
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: Sep 15, 2016
|
#28885
Confused how you come to answer choice B.

I set it up correctly but am unsure of how you come to the conclusion that all Hs are Cs.

This was my setup:

C->T (with line negating)
P->T
P->H (with line negating)
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#28920
Hi cboles,

It's imperative to identify each conditional relationship as a premise or a conclusion before linking them up. So:
  • Premise: C :arrow: T
    Premise: P :arrow: T
    ===========
    Conclu.: P :arrow: H
The premises, when combined, produce the following chain:
  • Premise (1) + (2): P :arrow: T :arrow: C
(note that we're using the contrapositive of Premise 1)

To justify the conclusion, we need to establish that:
  • Justify: C :arrow: H

    Contrapositive: H :arrow: C
Thus, if we "add" this additional premise to the two premises we already have, the conclusion will be properly justified:
  • Premise (1) + (2) + Justify: P :arrow: T :arrow: C :arrow: H

    Therefore, P :arrow: H
This validates answer choice (B).

Hope this helps! Let me know.

Thanks,
 avengingangel
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: Jun 14, 2016
|
#36142
hi! so, i hope this'll make sense:

i correctly diagrammed the two premises and conclusion, but instead of seeing h :arrow: c (or it's contrapositive) as the missing link, i saw t :arrow: h.

i then went to look for that or its contrapositive in the answer choices, and after not seeing it, i realized b works also, but seemingly in a longer chain/combination of conditionals ?

my question is, 1) is that correct, that the other link that i found was missing could have been a correct answer choice as well, and 2) isn't it a more direct link that answer choice B ???

thanks!!!
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#38844
In short, angel - yes! If we had an answer that told us that no tracheophytes are Hominidae, that too would have justified the conclusion. Would it be "more direct", as you said? I suppose if by that you mean we could "skip" one of the terms (chordates), then yes, it would be more direct. Don't expect that too often on the LSAT, though, as the authors like to be more remote much of the time. It's easier to be more direct, and easy is not their goal, right? Making us tie back to the first sentence, with the confusion that its structure often causes, is more their style.

You can often Justify more way than one, just as there are frequently multiple good prephrases to strengthen or weaken, and there may be many assumptions in a stimulus. Your goal isn't always to find the best one or the easiest one, but instead to find the best one of the five that are given to you. Cast a wider net, step back and look at the big picture, don't lose the forest for the trees, and some other cliche bits of advice may also apply here.

Keep at it, you're doing just fine.
User avatar
 Adam354
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Feb 08, 2022
|
#93944
Using strikethrough's on H's is sometimes not readable.

P in -> T in -> C out -> H out
contrapositive is
H in -> C in -> T out -> P out
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5848
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#93948
Adam354 wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:47 pm Using strikethrough's on H's is sometimes not readable.

P in -> T in -> C out -> H out
contrapositive is
H in -> C in -> T out -> P out
Hi Adam,

That really only applies to the forum, where the strikethrough we are forced to use appears similar to a dash ( - ) across the letter, as in H.

When actually diagramming them yourself, the symbol should be more like a slash: / . Then it is far less likely you'd make an error since it's such a clear symbol that doesn't get confused with the horizontal crossbar of the H. You see this in how we represent that in our books etc. On the forum, we are limited to the basic character tools, so it's a different situation entirely :-D

Thanks!
User avatar
 Adam354
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Feb 08, 2022
|
#93959
Dave Killoran wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 2:25 pm
Adam354 wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:47 pm Using strikethrough's on H's is sometimes not readable.

P in -> T in -> C out -> H out
contrapositive is
H in -> C in -> T out -> P out
Hi Adam,

That really only applies to the forum, where the strikethrough we are forced to use appears similar to a dash ( - ) across the letter, as in H.

When actually diagramming them yourself, the symbol should be more like a slash: / . Then it is far less likely you'd make an error since it's such a clear symbol that doesn't get confused with the horizontal crossbar of the H. You see this in how we represent that in our books etc. On the forum, we are limited to the basic character tools, so it's a different situation entirely :-D

Thanks!
Haha yes for sure. I meant on the forum, but it only took a couple minutes to figure out that was the case. I agree about the strikethrough technique on paper.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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