LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

User avatar
 Dancingbambarina
  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: Mar 30, 2024
|
#114157
I was just reviewing this question and thought to myself, why is this answer not attained by conditionality (and with the last sentence just serving as a qualifier or an enforcer for the conditionality)?

My thinking is (AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN I AM NOT CLEAR ENOUGH):

P1: Widespread acceptance of idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare -------> injurious to democracy

P2: The assumptions that appear to guide legislators ---------> often become widely accepted

NOTE NOTE NOTE: I fully get that P2 above is not really conditional in nature

NOW....................................................... the conclusion starts with the negated necessary conditiona of P1, thereby enacting the contrapositive, but skips the other element of the contrapositive and goes right to the rogue element. In my mind this is the perfect setup for an assumption of the missing link.

I just used the last sentence as confirmation that the missing link in the correct AC would be able to bridge the gap described above.


SO the probelm was basically:

Stimulus was A---> B
Conclusion was /B------>C

AC E for me was just the link contraposed (i.e. /A---->C)

Please let me know :

1. if I'm right.
2. if using that last sentence as an enforcer for the correct AC (the link) was correct?

Thanks so much

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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