#16- When a threat to life is common, as are automobile and

[Txflier]

another S&N that I'm tripping up on, going by the, without, becomes Necessary and negate the Sufficient.

Therapist: The ability to trust other people is essential to happiness, for without trust there can be no meaningful emotional connection to another human being, and without meaningful emotional connections to others we feel isolated.

H--> T

MC --> T

Not I --> MC

Correct Answer choice A)

No one who is feeling isolated can feel happy

I --> Not Happy

[Nikki Siclunov]

Your analysis is correct. The argument can be diagrammed as follows:

Premise: MC --> T
(without trust there can be no meaningful emotional connection to another human being)

Premise: No I --> MC
(without meaningful emotional connections to others we feel isolated)

Conclusion: H --> T
(the ability to trust other people is essential to happiness)

The premises, when combined, produce the following additive inference:

Premises: No I --> T
Conclusion: H --> T

The Justify answer needs to connect the two sufficient conditions as follows:

H --> No I

Thus, we have H --> No I ---> T, which justifies the conclusion H --> T.

Answer choice A is consistent with this prephrase and is therefore correct: I --> Not H is equivalent in meaning to H --> No I.

[Txflier]

Thanks again

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I had initially picked B, and after reviewing it I can see why its incorrect because "particularly dreadful" and "those who would be affected have no control over it" seem to be out of scope and not supported by the stimulus.

But I don"t see how C is either. This a.c. to me is also flawed ...how can we infer from the stimulus that " those who get their information PRIMARILY from new media tend to overestimate the risks of uncommon threats relative to the risks of common threats. The stimulus says people in general, not a specific demographic.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sarah,

The trick to C here is realizing what you know in light of that last sentence about "people in general." We know the news media over-reports uncommon threats. And, we know that people estimate based on how much threats come to their attention. Therefore, people who mostly get info from the news media will have seen over-reports of uncommon threats, which will impact their estimates of the risk of uncommon threats relative to common threats. As a result, C follows. Does that help?

[schocktherapy]

You have to remember that this is an inference question which means that you or not being asked to decisively, categorically, and definitively prove the argument. You're basically being asked what other assumptions or conclusions might we be permitted to make based off the following fact pattern? If you tell me you are retaking the LSAT exam, I can infer that you've taken an exam before in your life. If I know that you must graduate from high school to attend college; and you tell me that you are studying for the bar exam I can infer that you've graduated from high school. Now you might not have graduated from high school. You might have gotten a fake diploma and it's a huge secret that you never told anybody etc etc etc...