LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- wayne_palmer10
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 17
- Joined: July 04th, 2009
PT44, S1, Q14 The economy is doing badly
How would you go about diagramming this one? "Their occurrence together..." seems to indicate a sufficient condition, but the previous sentence threw me off a bit.
-
- stackoutawinner
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 45
- Joined: June 30th, 2009
- First Responder
Re: PT44, S1, Q14 The economy is doing badly
Okay, I'm going to attempt to solve the question in real time as I type...
1. economy doing badly
2. RE in a slump
3. Car sales lowest in years
4. If 2 or 3 weren't true, then 1 would be incorrect
5. 1 is true because 2 & 3 are both true
The question is an inference, calling for us to choose the answer that is supported by the above argument.
Answer choice A says because 2, therefore 1. This violates 4. Strike
Answer choice B says If 1, then either 2 or 3. This not only is a fallacy in relation to the argument, but it also goes against 4 (because the argument calls for both). The fallacy committed here is affirming the consequent, but as I said, it doesn't even get that right.
Answer choice C says if no 2, then no 1. This goes along with 4. Therefore, I'm going to say this is correct... but will now check the other two to make sure
Answer choice D says if not 1 then not likely to have both 2 & 3. This is the contrapositive of the argument. The argument says IF 2 & 3 THEN 1. This answer choice says ~ 1 --> ~ 2 v ~ 3. The catch here is the word "unlikely". I'll defer this, but I don't find it to be better than C based on my write up.
Answer choice E affirms the consequent.
In looking at my two choices, I'm going to have to dig deeper and actually diagram the conditional logic. I'll continue to use the numbers, but now I'm going to diagram 4 and 5 and see where it takes me.
4 = ~ 2 v ~ 3 --> ~ 1; 1 --> 2 ^ 3
5 = 2 ^ 3 --> 1; ~ 1 --> ~ 2 v ~ 3
In looking at number 5, there's a qualifier "quite probable" which means my initial analysis of D was unjust. I'm therefore going to have to add the qualifier into the equation:
2 ^ 3 --> probably 1; ~ 1 --> probably ~ 2 v ~ 3
Answer C is correct but is absolute. I'm now seeing that my initial reaction was incorrect because I omitted the qualifier in my initial write up.
Answer choice D is also correct, but includes the qualifier "likely" which is a synonym of "probably". You will see that this answer matches my updated contrapositive of #5 exactly.
Therefore, answer D.
I'm not sure if this helped or not, I wrote it out as I was going through it
You're right that the 4th statement contrasts with the 5th. It *almost* creates a biconditional, but it keeps the 2/3 lumped in such a way that it's not a true biconditional.
1. economy doing badly
2. RE in a slump
3. Car sales lowest in years
4. If 2 or 3 weren't true, then 1 would be incorrect
5. 1 is true because 2 & 3 are both true
The question is an inference, calling for us to choose the answer that is supported by the above argument.
Answer choice A says because 2, therefore 1. This violates 4. Strike
Answer choice B says If 1, then either 2 or 3. This not only is a fallacy in relation to the argument, but it also goes against 4 (because the argument calls for both). The fallacy committed here is affirming the consequent, but as I said, it doesn't even get that right.
Answer choice C says if no 2, then no 1. This goes along with 4. Therefore, I'm going to say this is correct... but will now check the other two to make sure
Answer choice D says if not 1 then not likely to have both 2 & 3. This is the contrapositive of the argument. The argument says IF 2 & 3 THEN 1. This answer choice says ~ 1 --> ~ 2 v ~ 3. The catch here is the word "unlikely". I'll defer this, but I don't find it to be better than C based on my write up.
Answer choice E affirms the consequent.
In looking at my two choices, I'm going to have to dig deeper and actually diagram the conditional logic. I'll continue to use the numbers, but now I'm going to diagram 4 and 5 and see where it takes me.
4 = ~ 2 v ~ 3 --> ~ 1; 1 --> 2 ^ 3
5 = 2 ^ 3 --> 1; ~ 1 --> ~ 2 v ~ 3
In looking at number 5, there's a qualifier "quite probable" which means my initial analysis of D was unjust. I'm therefore going to have to add the qualifier into the equation:
2 ^ 3 --> probably 1; ~ 1 --> probably ~ 2 v ~ 3
Answer C is correct but is absolute. I'm now seeing that my initial reaction was incorrect because I omitted the qualifier in my initial write up.
Answer choice D is also correct, but includes the qualifier "likely" which is a synonym of "probably". You will see that this answer matches my updated contrapositive of #5 exactly.
Therefore, answer D.
I'm not sure if this helped or not, I wrote it out as I was going through it
You're right that the 4th statement contrasts with the 5th. It *almost* creates a biconditional, but it keeps the 2/3 lumped in such a way that it's not a true biconditional.
-
- ManhattanPrepLSAT2
-
Thanks Received: 311
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 303
- Joined: July 14th, 2009
Re: PT44, S2, Q14 The economy is doing badly
Hey Wayne,
I think your process is a little different from mine, but let me explain how I would think of this question.
This is an inference question. That means I need to be more focused on understanding the author's point, and less focused on finding gaps or flaws in the argument.
The author's point, stripped down, could be thought of as follows:
Real estate slump for some time +
Car sales lowest in years =
Economy doing badly.
In addition, if either is doing better, then it is consistent with healthy economy.
Interpreting "consistent" is key here. It does not mean a cause and effect relationship (The phrase, "Liking pizza is consistent with being American" does not mean that liking pizza makes one likely to be American.)
If you can get the conditional logic correct in the first go around, great. If not, don't sweat it. Get rid of the wrong answer choices, and you'll get another chance to evaluate when you match up the remaining choices with the original argument.
As I go into the answers, my focus is on "Which answer choice can I prove if the argument is taken to be correct?"
We can easily eliminate (A). We needed two factors to come together, and (A) only involves one factor. Not provable.
(B) reverses the logic here in an incorrect way. Is (B) provable? No. We could have an economy that is unhealthy for other reasons.
(C) is attractive. However, though the argument tells us a healthy real estate market is consistent with a healthy economy, it does not tell us that it then makes it likely that the economy is healthy. Again, the market could be unhealthy for other reasons.
(D) is provable based on the text. The text told us that if both were in a slump, the market would likely be unhealthy. If the market is not unhealthy, it's not likely both are in a slump.
(E) reverses the logic. The economy could be bad for other reasons.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions.
I think your process is a little different from mine, but let me explain how I would think of this question.
This is an inference question. That means I need to be more focused on understanding the author's point, and less focused on finding gaps or flaws in the argument.
The author's point, stripped down, could be thought of as follows:
Real estate slump for some time +
Car sales lowest in years =
Economy doing badly.
In addition, if either is doing better, then it is consistent with healthy economy.
Interpreting "consistent" is key here. It does not mean a cause and effect relationship (The phrase, "Liking pizza is consistent with being American" does not mean that liking pizza makes one likely to be American.)
If you can get the conditional logic correct in the first go around, great. If not, don't sweat it. Get rid of the wrong answer choices, and you'll get another chance to evaluate when you match up the remaining choices with the original argument.
As I go into the answers, my focus is on "Which answer choice can I prove if the argument is taken to be correct?"
We can easily eliminate (A). We needed two factors to come together, and (A) only involves one factor. Not provable.
(B) reverses the logic here in an incorrect way. Is (B) provable? No. We could have an economy that is unhealthy for other reasons.
(C) is attractive. However, though the argument tells us a healthy real estate market is consistent with a healthy economy, it does not tell us that it then makes it likely that the economy is healthy. Again, the market could be unhealthy for other reasons.
(D) is provable based on the text. The text told us that if both were in a slump, the market would likely be unhealthy. If the market is not unhealthy, it's not likely both are in a slump.
(E) reverses the logic. The economy could be bad for other reasons.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions.
3 posts Page 1 of 1