- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Mon Nov 10, 2025 4:08 pm
#121949
Hi lsatchallenger,
First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Steve's earlier post (Post #2) on this forum thread, as you may find it helpful.
You can find it here.
viewtopic.php?f=596&t=1973
This argument does require a bit of manipulation of the terms to get the diagram correct.
The first part of the first sentence provides a premise that the charter requires enrolling some students with special education needs.
Basically, this means that if the charter is being followed (i.e. not in violation), then some students with special education needs are enrolled.
We could diagram this:
Charter Not in Violation -> SSENE
Taking the contrapositive, we get:
If no students with special education needs are enrolled, then the charter is in violation.
We could diagram this:
No SSENE -> Charter in Violation
We then get a premise that no students with learning disabilities are enrolled.
We could diagram this:
No SLDE
We then get the conclusion that the charter is in violation.
What we need to justify this argument is to link our premise "No SLDE" to "No SSENE," so that we can link everything together to conclude that the charter is in violation. The "No SLDE" term needs to be the sufficient condition because it is the "starting point" in our argument since it is the only factual premise that we have.
Putting it all together, this is what the justified conditional argument looks like.
Premise: No SSENE -> Charter in Violation
Premise: No SLDE
Missing Link/Correct Answer: No SLDE -> No SSENE
Conclusion: Charter in Violation
(Keep in mind that the correct answer can also be in the form of the contrapositive.)
Answer A (diagrammed SLDE -> SSENE) is a Mistaken Negation of what we need.
Answer D (diagrammed SSENE -> SLDE) is the contrapositive of what we need, which is correct.
First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Steve's earlier post (Post #2) on this forum thread, as you may find it helpful.
You can find it here.
viewtopic.php?f=596&t=1973
This argument does require a bit of manipulation of the terms to get the diagram correct.
The first part of the first sentence provides a premise that the charter requires enrolling some students with special education needs.
Basically, this means that if the charter is being followed (i.e. not in violation), then some students with special education needs are enrolled.
We could diagram this:
Charter Not in Violation -> SSENE
Taking the contrapositive, we get:
If no students with special education needs are enrolled, then the charter is in violation.
We could diagram this:
No SSENE -> Charter in Violation
We then get a premise that no students with learning disabilities are enrolled.
We could diagram this:
No SLDE
We then get the conclusion that the charter is in violation.
What we need to justify this argument is to link our premise "No SLDE" to "No SSENE," so that we can link everything together to conclude that the charter is in violation. The "No SLDE" term needs to be the sufficient condition because it is the "starting point" in our argument since it is the only factual premise that we have.
Putting it all together, this is what the justified conditional argument looks like.
Premise: No SSENE -> Charter in Violation
Premise: No SLDE
Missing Link/Correct Answer: No SLDE -> No SSENE
Conclusion: Charter in Violation
(Keep in mind that the correct answer can also be in the form of the contrapositive.)
Answer A (diagrammed SLDE -> SSENE) is a Mistaken Negation of what we need.
Answer D (diagrammed SSENE -> SLDE) is the contrapositive of what we need, which is correct.