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: 4239
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#21250
Mustafaabdulmalek wrote:In my opinion is the answer B is right and answer E also right but since the question about the conclusion it does make more sense that B is better but not that E a mistaken
Regards,
Hey Mustafa,

I wanted to take a moment and add to Steve's superb answer. In the section I quoted above, you mention that you think B is correct and E, the correct answer according to the test makers, is incorrect. I understand why you think that, and hopefully Steve's analysis explains why B is actually incorrect. But, the thing I wanted to comment on is the idea of disagreeing with the LSAT and the answers they say are right and wrong. While you should use your opinions to ferret out bad arguments, one thing you can't do is argue with the LSAT when it comes to what is right and wrong. when it's all said and done, because they score the test you will lose every time :-D I wrote an article about how you should look at things when you disagree with them, and I'd recommend reading through that. One of the most important things to do while studying is to understand how they think, and to realize that your opinion won't change the answer (although I wish it could sometimes!). The more you do that, the better you will score.

I hope that helps a bit with how to approach situations like this. Thanks!
 Mustafaabdulmalek
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: Nov 17, 2015
|
#21251
Thanks you for your response but you misunderstood me
I don't think that the answer is correct or not ,you are right but
The thing that I don't get is how answer E the wrong one is a mistaken reversal and how redistribution wealth is sufficient not necessary
Regards
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#21252
Hey Mustafa,

Did you get a chance to take a look at the first part of our response? The first part deals with sufficient versus necessary, and the second part with why it's a good idea to avoid disagreeing with the test makers—both are important points to consider, and both seem relevant to this discussion. For convenience I've reproduced the first part of that response below; please take a look and let me know whether it's clear—thanks!
Steve Stein wrote:Hey Mustafa,

That's a good question. You're right about the fact that the word "required" is usually associated with a necessary condition—indeed, the word is actually synonymous with “necessary.”

That answer choice, however, says that wealth distribution is “all that is required.” If you have all that is required to do something, then what you have is sufficient. Consider the following example:
  • All you need to enter the theater is a ticket. A ticket is all you need for entry.
Another way to phrase this would be “a ticket is sufficient for entry.” Ticket :arrow: Entry

So, if "all that is required" to create justice is wealth distribution, this means that wealth distribution is sufficient to create justice:
  • Wealth redistribution :arrow: Create Justice
The moral of the story: If something is required, it is necessary. If something is "all that's required," that's sufficient.
 Mustafaabdulmalek
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: Nov 17, 2015
|
#21253
Thank you very very much for this you made it so clear now
This answer was So helpful
Thanks
User avatar
 Nsaramouni
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: Dec 21, 2020
|
#82831
Hello,

I am having trouble understanding why the statement 'redistribution of wealth' does not have a biconditional element
As in Economic justice on one branch and intolerance on the other....

The word 'and' seems like it would create both, not a continuous chain. Is it possible to get some clarification on this?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3809
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#83706
The "and" is connecting two necessary conditions (unable to alleviate... AND will lead inevitably to...), Nsaramouni, and is not creating a biconditional with redistribution of wealth. A biconditional would be if failing to redistribute wealth ensured those conditions and the presence of those conditions also guaranteed that wealth was not redistributed. Instead, we have what we sometimes call a "multi-conditional" statement, where one condition is sufficient for two or more others, or where multiple conditions, either together or separately, may be sufficient for the same thing.

"If I stop eating so much junk food I will lose weight and feel better" = Stop Eating Junk Food :arrow: Lose Weight + Feel Better. The contrapositive is Lose Weight OR Feel Better :arrow: Stop Eating Junk Food. But losing weight doesn't prove I stopped eating junk food, nor does feeling better. Also, losing weight and feeling better are not sufficient or necessary for each other.

In this argument it's Redistribute Wealth :arrow: Alleviate Economic Injustice + Intolerable Inequities. The contrapositive is Alleviate Economic Injustice OR Intolerable Inequities :arrow: Redistribute Wealth

At no point is do we have a claim that Redistribution of Wealth guarantees Alleviating Economic Injustice. The conditional relationship doesn't flow in that direction.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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