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
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.