Q11 - A gift is not generous unless

[wayne_palmer10]

This type of principle question throws me off. Given this type of question, I think that we can only conclude the necessary condition and the negation of the sufficient condition. So, in this specific question, we can conclude that that a gift is intended to benefit the recepient and is worth more...We can also conclude that the gift is generous. These conclusions are based on the statement before the semicolon. From the second statement, we can conclude that a gift is selfish. We can also that a gift is not intended to benefit the giver and is not less valuable than is customary. Am I right with these conclusions?

How would you attack such principle questions? I had trouble arriving at (D).

[aileenann]

Hi there.

If I am not mistaken, there is nothing we can conclude from the premises we get. They only give us conditional relationships. However, to draw a conclusion premised on conditional relationships, you need to be able to go further and actually know that one of the triggers (If...) is true to conclude anything.

Here, we have some principles to guide us in assessing whether a gift is a generous gift or a selfish gift. (D) works because Olga gives a gift that is expected in the situation. A gift cannot be generous if it is just an ordinary/expected/status quo sort of gift. This matches up perfectly with the argument.

Let's look at some of the wrong answers to get a better picture. (A) is out of scope, because the premises we have don't talk about how much a giver pays for a gift - they only talk about the actual value of the gift. Therefore how much Charles paid is irrelevant to the determination of whether his gift was selfish or generous.

(B) similarly is out of scope because we don't care whether a recipient of a gift is offended by the gift in determining whether the gift is a selfish or a generous gift.

Please let me know if you have any follow up concerns. Thanks for your question!

[nazu.s.shaikh]

I'm still having a bit of trouble with this question, do these conditional statements not be considered to have a conclusion because the "If... then" format isn't there? How do we know that this conditional principle doesn't allow a conclusion to be drawn that someone is generous?

I diagrammed it this way :

G= a gift is generous
BR= gift intended to benefit the recipient
WM= worth moe than what is expected or customary in the situation.

G -------> BR + WM

That was from the first statement.

The second statement

S= gift is selfish
BG= the gift is given to benefit the giver
LV= less valuable than is customary


BG or LV ----> S



My trouble with the answers below was that I was applying each statement (together) to each scenario... what I not to do that? Are both needed to be present in the answer choice? Do I link these two statements together?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Your expression of the conditional relationships is perfect. But you don't need to compare them both to each answer choice. All you need is for the correct answer choice to conform to either one or the other of the two principles.

Aileen's explanation above is spot on though. So for an explanation for why answer choice (D) is correct

Here, we have some principles to guide us in assessing whether a gift is a generous gift or a selfish gift. (D) works because Olga gives a gift that is expected in the situation. A gift cannot be generous if it is just an ordinary/expected/status quo sort of gift. This matches up perfectly with the argument.

[jojo2455]

I think that this has to be diagrammed as so:

G= a gift is generous
BR= gift intended to benefit the recipient
WM= worth more than what is expected
C=Customary

G -------> (BR And WM) Or ~C

The first condition is not satisfied because it is not worth more than what is intended. The second condition is not satisfied because it is customary. Therefore it is not generous.

If it is written as
G= a gift is generous
BR= gift intended to benefit the recipient
WM= worth more than what is expected or customary in the situation.

G -------> BR + WM

Then it would be generous. Condition one is satisfied since it is intended to benefit the recipient. Condition 2 is satisfied because it customary in the situation. So if it is written like this then it is a generous gift.

Am I missing something??

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

G -------> BR + WM

Then it would be generous. Condition one is satisfied since it is intended to benefit the recipient. Condition 2 is satisfied because it customary in the situation. So if it is written like this then it is a generous gift.

Am I missing something??

You're not missing anything but you're mistaking a set of necessary conditions for a set that is sufficient.

You're committing the same flaw as the following argument:

All soldiers wear uniforms and carry firearms. This man is wearing a uniform and carrying a firearm. Therefore this man must be a soldier.

Not so fast, police officers also wear uniforms and carry firearms!

Remember never to go backwards across the arrow... Does that answer your question?

[LSAT-Chang]

Hi Matt,
I posted a very similar question for another problem (I basically asked if we had a conditional principle like A -> B + C, if it was okay to just satisfy B or C and not both) and this is exactly where that happens.
So I don't understand how that is possible. I am very familiar with splitting, so I understand the whole part about how we could split the above conditional statement into two:

A -> B
A -> C

However, in logic games, we know that B and C are there if A is there -- it can't be just B and not C, or C and not B, since A triggers BOTH B and C.

In this question, the correct answer (D) -- I got it because the other four were either a reversal or didn't relate to the principle at all -- but I am definitely not satisfied with (D) since the two conditionals that relate to being "generous" are:

generous -> intended to benefit the recipient
generous -> worth more than what is expected

So, generous triggers BOTH! If we have generous then we have the first and the second! we can't "choose" which one to have - they must follow, correct? But (D) basically has just the contrapositive of the second --

-worth more than expected -> -generous

I understand that is the correct contrapositive, but what I don't understand is how it would be a correct answer when we are missing a crucial necessary component. It's like an "incomplete" argument. Please let me know if it is OKAY in these types of principle problems to just satisfy one and not the other (I think that would be ridiculous.. then it gets all confusing with logic games conditionals needing to satisfy both and what not..) Do I make sense?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That's a very technical question, but I'll try to provide you with a response here. It's more about technique than anything else and knowing how to deal with principle questions in general.

We're asked to find a judgement (argument) that conformed to the principle. The principle says that if a gift is generous, then it is both intended to benefit the receiver and worth more than is customary or expected.

You understand how the answer reflects an appropriate use of the contrapositive, right?

On principle questions that ask you to find an argument that conforms to the principle imagine the principle is a conditional relationship, and the answer choice is an argument that will utilize the conditional to justify it's reasoning.

In general on principle questions, imagine the evidence of the argument is the trigger (sufficient condition) and the conclusion of the argument is the outcome (necessary condition). And always keep in mind the potential use of the contrapositive. It is exploited frequently on principle questions since the conditional is easier to see expressed as the "if the evidence is true, then the conclusion is true."

I could keep going for another 2 hours on principle questions, so I feel like I'm cutting the discussion here short, but hopefully you can see how this one works.

[LSAT-Chang]

That's a very technical question, but I'll try to provide you with a response here. It's more about technique than anything else and knowing how to deal with principle questions in general.

We're asked to find a judgement (argument) that conformed to the principle. The principle says that if a gift is generous, then it is both intended to benefit the receiver and worth more than is customary or expected.

You understand how the answer reflects an appropriate use of the contrapositive, right?

On principle questions that ask you to find an argument that conforms to the principle imagine the principle is a conditional relationship, and the answer choice is an argument that will utilize the conditional to justify it's reasoning.

In general on principle questions, imagine the evidence of the argument is the trigger (sufficient condition) and the conclusion of the argument is the outcome (necessary condition). And always keep in mind the potential use of the contrapositive. It is exploited frequently on principle questions since the conditional is easier to see expressed as the "if the evidence is true, then the conclusion is true."

I could keep going for another 2 hours on principle questions, so I feel like I'm cutting the discussion here short, but hopefully you can see how this one works.

Thanks a lot. So since with this argument, in order for it to be generous we need to meet 2 components (just to shorten it). But if 1 component is not met, then we don't have "generous". So whether or not we have the other remaining component, we still can't have "generous" because of the missing 1st component which is a necessary assumption, right?

[timmydoeslsat]

Thanks a lot. So since with this argument, in order for it to be generous we need to meet 2 components (just to shorten it). But if 1 component is not met, then we don't have "generous". So whether or not we have the other remaining component, we still can't have "generous" because of the missing 1st component which is a necessary assumption, right?

That is exactly right! It does not matter if the other one is met. As long as that one necessary factor is not met, then that sufficient condition will not exist.

And to expand on this some more. We know what would NOT be generous, but we will never ever ever ever (ever!) in this world be able to determine that we do have in fact a generous gift. We know two of the necessary components. But just because we have two of the necessary components does not mean we will have a generous gift.

We know that we DO NOT HAVE a generous gift when one of those two necessary conditions are absent.

[LSAT-Chang]

Thank you timmydoeslsat! You seem to know this back and forth -- did you take the lsat?? or are you still prepping for an upcoming one? You seem REALLY prepared for this!!

[timmydoeslsat]

I will be taking the test in October! I have studied for a while!

[zana.nanic]

I am confused by the conditional logic in this statement.
A gift is NOT generous UNLESS it is intendend to benefit the recipient (A) AND is worth more than expected (B).

Shouldn't this translate into:
IF NOT A AND B-> NOT generous
and
Grenerous-> A or B

I am confused by the fact that in the book (pp 407 LR) and here, you split the statement in
G-> intended to benefit the recipient
G-> worth more than expected

Which is something I cannot do, If OR is in the outcome I can't split the statements.

Is it for the double negation?Can I have an explanation about when it is possible to cancel out two NOT statements in Conditional Logic?Help, please:(.

[MayMay]

stimulus says:
benefit giver OR less valuable --> selfish

with choice A-
We know that Charles gave a ticket that he did not want to his cousin as a bday gift.
doesn't this benefit the giver? He doesn't have to pay for a gift.
This would satisfy one of the suff conditions, ensuring the nec of "selfish."

thoughts?
or is it that we can't say not paying for a gift = benefit to the giver?

[MayMay]

anybody?

[WaltGrace1983]

stimulus says:
benefit giver OR less valuable --> selfish

with choice A-
We know that Charles gave a ticket that he did not want to his cousin as a bday gift.
doesn't this benefit the giver? He doesn't have to pay for a gift.
This would satisfy one of the suff conditions, ensuring the nec of "selfish."

thoughts?
or is it that we can't say not paying for a gift = benefit to the giver?

Sorry for a late reply. Here is what we are working with...

(a) Generous → (intended to benefit recipient) & (worth more than what is expected/customary)

(aa) ~(intended to benefit recipient) or ~(worth more than what is expected/customary) → ~Generous

(b) (Given to benefit giver) or (less valuable than customary) → selfish

(bb) ~Selfish → ~(Given to benefit giver) and ~(less valuable than customary)

(A) is talking about being selfish. It says (paid nothing for tickets) → selfish. From the stimulus, we know that IF it either (1) is given to benefit the giver or (2) is less valuable than customary THEN it is selfish. So what is the problem with (A)? The problem is of course two-fold. We have no idea if it less valuable than customary for starters. Secondly - and this refers to your question - it doesn't actually benefit the giver, Charles. Think about it. How does Charles benefit from this? He gives away two tickets. So what? He "hates opera." Maybe you are thinking "well maybe his cousin will do something nice for him" but we cannot make that leap. Maybe you are thinking "he hates opera and getting rid of the tickets benefits him" but we are unsure how it benefits him. Maybe you are thinking "he paid nothing and got expensive tickets! of course that benefits him!" except he "hates opera." Do you see what I'm saying?

(B) says (Emily's brother is hurt and offended) → selfish. We have no idea about whether or not this gift is less/more valuable than customary. We have no reason to believe that Emily is benefited by this gift. If anything it does not benefit her because she had to pay for it and we are not told anything about how her brother's health affects her.

(C) says (causes clients to continue giving Amanda business) → generous. We have no idea about the relative value of this in comparison to custom. In addition, we could probably assume that this was intended to benefit the recipient but, when concluding that someone is generous, we know nothing! We only know something about concluding that someone is not generous.

(D) is right. Gift all children in Olga's family's receive → ~generous makes perfect sense. If all children receive it, it is NOT worth more than what is expected/customary, THUS satisfying the sufficient condition, THUS leading one to conclude ~generous.

(E) says ~(benefit the recipient) → ~generous. When concluding ~generous, the sufficient condition should be NOT intended to benefit the recipient. Or the other option, when concluding ~generous, is a sufficient condition of NOT worth more than what is expected - we can assume that this WAS worth more than what is expected.

[matthughes2]

Here, we have some principles to guide us in assessing whether a gift is a generous gift or a selfish gift. (D) works because Olga gives a gift that is expected in the situation. A gift cannot be generous if it is just an ordinary/expected/status quo sort of gift. This matches up perfectly with the argument.

This makes perfect sense to me; I failed to choose this answer, however, because I started making weird what-if arguments that undermined that reasoning. For example, what if Olga's daughter is a design student and needed a high-end Mac, and her other kids were psci majors and could have gotten by with an Acer? That would make the reasoning invalid. Anyways, the same reason to make this dumb assumption happen to be the same reason to, say, NOT make that dumb assumption so who cares. Just another example of the LSAT messing with my brain.

If the logic of the prompt is

G -----> BR AND WMC

B/R OR W/M/C -------> /G

If a gift is NOT worth more than is customary (as we're expected to infer from answer choice D), it is necessarily NOT generous.

I chose A because somehow I read "Charles didn't pay anything for the tickets" as "the tickets were not worth more than is customary", which is silly because we have no idea what is customary for Charles to spend on gifts for family members, nor do we know the actual price of the tickets and therefore have no way to assess their worth. Having no frame of reference as to customary value or actual value makes this an invalid option.

[dontmesswmeow]

I totally agree with nana.zanic in his/her confusion.

People, please

Read the stimulus very closely and answer the question that was posted here because I see some folks here don't even look at the question again and is just very proud to repeat what they have already recognized ---not seeing any gaps between the question and what they're saying or seeing.

So let me repeat to allow you to see what the stimulus is actually saying verbatim and so see what nana.zanic is questioning to the people here clearly:

A gift is not generous UNLESS !!! (intended to benefit recipient) + (worth more than what is customary)

which would translate

A gift is not generous if ~(intended beneficial) +(because it says AND!!!! in the actual stimulus. please look and READ, PLEASE) -(more than customary worth)

which means,

(*Beware. the logical structure is not the same as the sentence structure since some of you seem to be mistaking)

-intended beneficial and -(worth more than what is customary) -> ~generous (which is the opposite that the people here were saying that I don't understand and also, I couldn't understand because the explanation in the strategy book p.401 is also saying the same thing, too.)

Let me literally copy and paste it?

A GIFT IS NOT GENEROUS UNLESS IT IS INTENDED TO BENEFIT the recipient AND!!!!!!! is worth more than what is expected or customary in the situation.

Why is this problem happening? maybe there might be a better, alternative explanation for this question?

I initially chose (E) but now I clearly know the problem.

since Mike intended to benefit his nephew and gave him worth more than customary, he was generous. So (E) is incorrect.

But why (D)?

The computer is clearly not worth more than customary since all Olga kids got the same thing for graduation. So one condition is satisfied for the gift to be not generous. What about the other condition?

Is it intended to benefit her? YES. Olga is giving her daughter the computer as a GRADUATION GIFT?

who's gonna NOT intend to benefit her daughter(who's a recipient as well) when giving a graduation gift. If she's not giving her daughter graduation HARM, or graduation infection or something like HCl, I think we can't say a graduation gift computer from a mother to daughter is not intended to benefit her daughter---especially if you're going to also assume that in (E), Mike is giving his nephew 50 bucks as a birthday gift and Mike's action intended to benefit his nephew.

So.. This doesn't satisfy another condition to be NOT generous, which is, the giver should be NOT intending to benefit the recipient.

What is wrong with this answer choice and the stimulus analysis?

Can anyone ACTUALLY solve the problem? Not just repeating and regurgitating what they already have in mind without even looking at the question again----PLEASE!!

And like nana.zanic mentioned,

as the stimulus wrote 'AND' in the unless/if not clause, the 'AND' is in the trigger part, which means (as we all learned in the MP course) that we can't split the compound condition. OR in the trigger can, but AND should be in the outcome if it is to be split---if anybody is going to repeat what the book says and all the previous people say.

--------------------

Hmm, Maybe,. we should even assume that Olga the mama's intention can't be assumed as to benefit her daughter? Maybe it's unsupported?

UGH

[magic.imango]

Answer choice (E) is still throwing me for a loop. If the diagram is:

~benefit recipient OR ~worth more than expectations --> ~generous.

Then why doesn't (E) work? (E) states that the recipient was not benefited so the gift was not generous: ~benefit recipient --> ~generous.

Can anyone please clarify why answer choice (E) is wrong?

[sahilmillwala]

What confused me on this question was the "and" statement in the first principle. I know from the lrsg that when you have unless it means that you negate the information after the unless to if not. At first i was negating the statement to (Not intended to benefit receiver) AND (not worth more than what is expected) ------> (not generous). After thinking about it I think the confusion on this post about this question is using the unless rule to flip the compound statement. When negating the unless statement we must change the AND to an OR. Hence, we get (Not intended to benefit receiver) OR (not worth more than what is expected) ------> (not generous). Thus, we can confidently pick answer choice D because it satisfies one of the sufficient conditions for (not generous). Please do let me know if this is the correct way of thinking about this one.