LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8208
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#22771
Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True-SN. The correct answer choice is (E)

This stimulus consists of rules and information, so we should be interested in how the rules and information interact. Quite often such a stimulus will yield definite conclusions.

We know that Peter Lee passes the reviewer’s test. Applying the rule in the first sentence, the reviewer must believe that Peter Lee knows San Francisco as well or better than the reviewer. Since the author claims to be able to tell the difference between a true knowledge and an author who is faking, we must at least grant that the author wholly believes that Peter Lee is not a fake. We should also infer that the reviewer trusts Peter Lee, because he has passed the test by demonstrating the required knowledge.

It is true that the reviewer never specifically claimed familiarity with San Francisco, so it could be unclear why the rule infers anything. However, since the author says that Peter passes the test, the implication is that the reviewer believes that she can apply the rule, and that she knows San Francisco well.

Answer choice (A): The reviewer claims that trust enhances the enjoyment of a good novel. Since we should not assume that all the novels the author reads are good, it is not necessarily true that the author will enjoy virtually all the novels by writers she trusts. Because of that detail, this answer is unsupported, and is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The reviewer discusses how an author might gain her trust if he sets his novel in a city she knows well. That does not imply that the author trusts only those authors who set their novels in cities she knows well, so this choice is unsupported and wrong.

Answer choice (C): Since the author could be very familiar with many cities, we should not conclude that Peter Lee’s first book would have to be set in San Francisco for the reviewer’s test to apply, and this choice is incorrect. Also, in general, you should not assume that events have to be comparable unless the stimulus forces you to make such conclusions.

Answer choice (D): You could have eliminated this choice simply because it is about trusting the novel, whereas the stimulus concerned trusting the writer. Furthermore, this choice is also very similar to answer choice (B), which brings up an interesting point. Since the correct answer to a Logical Reasoning question must be unique, you should eliminate answer choices that are identical to each other. Since answer choice (D) claims that the reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city she does not know well, we could create the conditional diagram of know welltrust. The contrapositive of that diagram is trust→ know well, which is basically identical to answer choice (B). Therefore, both choices are incorrect, and any criticism leveled against answer choice (B) should be leveled against answer choice (D).

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The implication of the argument, as discussed, was that the reviewer believes that Peter Lee knows San Francisco at least as well as she does. If Peter Lee knows San Francisco “at least as well,” he knows the city as well or better.
 ellenb
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2012
|
#8897
Dear Powerscore,


I have read the explanations, but there were no diagrams, I just want to make sure that the diagram that I have for this question is correct.

The first sentence was a bit difficult to diagram, I was not sure what to put as the necessary and sufficient condition since the necessary condition had two statements in it, what do we do in that case.

When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see that the writer knows the city at least as well as I do if I am to take that writer seriously.

(If A->(C->D))

Read Novel City Know Well->(Take writer seriously->Know that writer knows the city as well as I do)

I hope I have the first statement diagrammed correctly.

Thanks,

Ellen
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#8908
Hi Ellen,

This is how I would diagram that first sentence:

Novel Set in City Reviewer Knows Well

..... ..... and ..... :arrow: .....Reviewer must see that writer knows city...

Reviewer is to take the writer seriously


Let me know whether that makes sense--thanks,

~Steve
 ellenb
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2012
|
#8943
Thanks Steve, so basically in this case, if I have two sufficient condition indicators I can put those two statements together by combining with an And and the rest is necessary.

For example,

When I eat apples, I get an allergy if I do not take my medications.

Eat Apples

and -----------------------------> I get an allergy

I do not take my medications


Is this sort of a similar situation? I just want to make sure if I encounter and example like number 21 I know what to do. What if it had two necessary conditions.

I must have eaten apples, if I get an allergy, also I must have not taken my medications.

Allergy-->not taken medications and eaten apples

Is this correct?

Thanks

Ellen
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#8951
Hi Ellen,

You got the first diagram right, but be careful when creating the contrapositive--don't forget to negate, and don't forget to change the "and" to "or":

First statement:

Eat apples
..... and ..... ..... :arrow: allergic reaction
NO medication

Contrapositive:
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... NOT eat apples
NO allergic reaction :arrow: ..... .....OR
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Medication

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve
 ellenb
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2012
|
#8952
Dear Steve,
The second example was not a contraposititve, but rathern another example with two necessary condtions, I used the same topic and words. Maybe I should have used some other words, in order not to confuse you. But please check and let me know if I had the sentence correct when there are two necessary statements.

Thanks

Ellen
 BethRibet
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 199
  • Joined: Oct 17, 2012
|
#8959
Hi Ellen,

Like Steve, I would have read this as an attempt at the contrapositive of your original stimulus. However taking this statement only: "I must have eaten apples, if I get an allergy, also I must have not taken my medications."

Then yes, this would be an accurate diagram:

Allergy-->not taken medications and eaten apples

Hope this helps!
Beth
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#8960
Hi Ellen,

Thanks for the clarification; I would rephrase your last statement slightly, but you've got it: I must have eaten apples if I'm having an allergic reaction, and I must not have taken my medication.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve
 ellenb
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2012
|
#8974
I meant my last statement to have two necessary conditions. Does it seem to have it?



I must have eaten apples, if I get an allergy, and I must have not taken my medications.

Allergy-->not taken medications and eaten apples

Thanks

Ellen
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#8979
It does.

~Steve

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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