LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 Jerrymakehabit
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Jan 28, 2019
|
#62344
Adam Tyson wrote:Hey there Jerry, let me see if I can clarify (and I think you have got it already). The way to weaken a conditional claim is to show that the necessary condition is not, in fact, necessary. That is, it is possible for the sufficient condition to occur and the necessary condition to not occur. In other words, the sufficient condition is NOT sufficient after all, because the necessary condition isn't actually required.

I would say you are also right about answer B here: there may be a negative incentive for innovation, but if the negative incentive is very small then it might not actually hamper it.

Looks like you've got it!
Got it. Thank you Adam and thank you all!
Jerry
User avatar
 MC_1234
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: May 10, 2021
|
#86984
So when it came to answering this question I was stuck on (D) or (E) and ultimately picked D. Looking back I can see why E is correct, my only concern was getting there.

When diagramming out the conditional reasoning, the solution in the book makes sense for me up until when getting to FB -> LV. I am confused on recognizing paraphrases such as "fall behind in the international arms race" meaning "wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position". While I can understand looking at them now they are similar, I wouldn't have imagined treating them as a paraphrase in order to diagram FB -> LV.

I ended up diagramming it as HA (historical action) or FPL (Foolishness of political leadership) -> LV.

Similarly in the question when the phrase "the nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life" I do not see how this paraphrases (while admittedly in the book says its a rough paraphrase) lead to ~FB and ~LV.

Which did not lead me to ~FB and ~LV -> ~HT30. While I do understand the necessary condition being negated here, it was more coming up with the sufficient.

Ultimately, I was confused with the conditional logic which made me pick D, but from an instinctual glance E made sense simply because of the fact it did not hurt the argument, not so much on using proper conditional logic.

Any help on this matter would be great, thank you!
User avatar
 Stephanie Oswalt
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 485
  • Joined: Jan 11, 2016
|
#86988
MC_1234 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:35 pm Any help on this matter would be great, thank you!
Hi MC_1234!

Thanks for the post! I have moved your question to the thread discussing this topic. Please review the official explanation on page 1 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=594&t=14925, as well as the discussion that follows the explanation. Let us know if that helps, or if you still have further questions! :-D Thanks!
User avatar
 MC_1234
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: May 10, 2021
|
#87022
Thanks for letting me see this, while helpful, I'm still not quite sure on how the paraphrasing was derived.
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4363
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#87054
MC_1234 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:35 pmWhen diagramming out the conditional reasoning, the solution in the book makes sense for me up until when getting to FB -> LV. I am confused on recognizing paraphrases such as "fall behind in the international arms race" meaning "wind up in a strategically disadvantageous position". While I can understand looking at them now they are similar, I wouldn't have imagined treating them as a paraphrase in order to diagram FB -> LV.
The key here is in your last sentence, when you say you wouldn't have imagined them to be similar. You can't be passive here, and you have to actively look for connections like these. The idea being that if you can see it afterward, then you can start looking for it during, especially because this wouldn't all connect together well without some sort of equivalence like this. Whenever I see multiple conditions in a problem, I immediately look to see if they haven't pulled this exact type of trick. Hopefully it's something easy to see like "never absent" = "always present," but the test makers aren't limited to something so definitionally straightforward. Regrettably, they can and do torture the relationships in the way we see in this problem. which is exactly why we use this problem as a discussion example!



MC_1234 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:35 pmSimilarly in the question when the phrase "the nation wants to maintain its value system and way of life" I do not see how this paraphrases (while admittedly in the book says its a rough paraphrase) lead to ~FB and ~LV.

Which did not lead me to ~FB and ~LV -> ~HT30. While I do understand the necessary condition being negated here, it was more coming up with the sufficient.
It's really the same thing as in the prior comment: you have to be looking to make a rough equivalence because otherwise the stimulus doesn't make sense; it's just a bunch of disconnected statements, and that's not what they do on the LSAT :-D


Keep in mind as well that we are just explaining what LSAC is doing. Anything we say about a problem is a reflection of how they are thinking, not us imposing some new way of thinking on them. As I often say, you have to see the test through the eyes of the test makers, because their view is the only one that matters.

Thanks!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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