User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Fri May 07, 2010 3:18 am

This question asks us to infer what must be true based on the information in the stimulus. There are three claims being made here.

1. Some presidents and prime ministers who had very successful foreign policies had no prior experience.
2. Anyone with an acute political sense, a disciplined temperament, and a highly developed ability to absorb and retain information can learn to conduct a successful foreign policy.
3. Prior experience is of little value to conducting a successful foreign policy.

(A) is not necessarily true. We do not know who has more experience. No comparison is made in the stimulus.
(B) must be true. We know that prior experience is not a sufficient condition for conducting a successful foreign policy from the last sentence, and we know that it's not a necessary condition from the first sentence.
(C) is contradicted by the stimulus. We know that prior experience is NOT a necessary condition for conducting a successful foreign policy.
(D) has two issues. The word "anyone" in the second claim ensures that those three elements are collectively sufficient. This answer choice states that they are individually necessary.
(E) is not supported by the stimulus. The first sentence says that prior experience is not necessary, the last that prior experience is not sufficient for conducting a successful foreign policy. It wouldn't make sense then that we should be able to say that a president who has more experience would thereby have more success.
 
romanmuffin
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 35
Joined: July 18th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by romanmuffin Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:50 am

Question. I often get tripped up when an answer choice talks about sufficient and necessary conditions. My question is about your explanation for why B is correct: How does the first sentence translate into saying that prior experience in foreign affairs is not a necessary condition? Ditto for how the last sentence states prior exp is not a sufficient condition.

I can see the logic behind the first sentence. Since there exists many presidents who have had the most successful foreign policies and had no prior exp in foreign affairs, then it is clear prior exp is NOT necessary at all for there to be a successful foreign policy.

But I have trouble thinking about sufficient conditions and the role the last sentence in this argument plays. Can someone help me out?
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:43 pm

I think this is a great question for learning to think about Sufficient/Necessary conditions, since it plays into both so well.

The last sentence says, "In fact, prior experience alone will be of little value to a foreign policymaker who lacks all three of these traits."

That means that by itself, prior experience, will not guarantee that one will conduct a successful foreign policy. If prior experience is not enough to guarantee a successful foreign policy, then it's surely not sufficient to guarantee it. I know I'm just saying the same thing in several different ways, but usually that's enough to get it to register.

Does that answer your question?
 
claudia.minoiu
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 6
Joined: April 09th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by claudia.minoiu Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:13 pm

Doesn't "each is necessary" mean that they are all together necessary? Thank you.
 
christine.defenbaugh
Thanks Received: 585
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 536
Joined: May 17th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by christine.defenbaugh Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:37 am

claudia.minoiu Wrote:Doesn't "each is necessary" mean that they are all together necessary? Thank you.


Excellent question claudia.minoiu!

Yes, if the three characteristics were necessary together, they would each be necessary as well. For instance, if we know that A --> B and C (collective necessity), then we also know that A --> B, and that A --> C (individual necessity).

The primary reason that (D) cannot be supported by the second claim is that second claim indicates that the three characteristics are sufficient, while (D) claims they are necessary. mattsherman's point above illustrates that even if we fixed that error by replacing the word 'necessary' with the word 'sufficient' in (D), it would still be wrong, because collective sufficiency and individual sufficiency are not at all the same thing!

Now, if we had support in the stimulus for the three characteristics being collectively necessary, then (D) would be just fine, since 'each necessary' and 'necessary together' are the same.

The real temptation for (D) comes from the third claim. It's easy to misread this to mean that lacking the three characteristics will doom your foreign policy - which would make the characteristics necessary. But this claim merely indicates that lacking the three characteristics means prior experience is worthless! While the three characteristics are more important than prior experience, there's nothing to indicate that they are strictly necessary.

Does that help clear things up?
 
claudia.minoiu
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 6
Joined: April 09th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by claudia.minoiu Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:02 am

Thanks Christine and sorry for the late response. I remember going back to this question sever times (after leaving it alone for a while) until it clicked. I think the language nuance confused me here but concept stands out clearly now: if I have a+b+ c = "each necessary" (equivalent to "all necessary").

Sometimes though we can also say that a+b+c = "together sufficient", as in the following example:

To graduate it is necessary to pay tuition, write a dissertation and give a presentation. Paying tuition, writing a dissertation and making a presentation are all necessary but also ensure (are sufficient) to graduate.

So I was confusing necessary and sufficient (trap answer D) with necessary but not sufficient (could be true).

Thanks again for the thorough explanation.
 
KayM793
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 12
Joined: July 10th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by KayM793 Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:14 am

Hello, I'm still a little confused about how the last sentence translate into a sufficient conditional. Does "will be of little value" mean cannot guarantee? I feel there is a tiny gap between being useless and cannot guarantee. Also I'm having some trouble diagraming this stimulus. Can somebody plz help me out? Thanks!!
 
JosephV
Thanks Received: 9
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 38
Joined: July 26th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Many of the presidents and

by JosephV Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:49 pm

KayM793 Wrote: I'm still a little confused about how the last sentence translate into a sufficient conditional.


The last sentence reads: In fact, prior experience alone will be of little value to a foreign policymaker who lacks all three of these traits. This actually does not translate into a sufficient condition. One way to diagram it would be:

prior experience ---/---> successful foreign policy.

KayM793 Wrote:Does "will be of little value" mean cannot guarantee?


Yes. I believe that a reasonable reading of "little value" in the given context translates into "does not ensure/guarantee a successful foreign policy."

KayM793 Wrote:I feel there is a tiny gap between being useless and cannot guarantee.


Yes, there is a gap but that's where English skills kick in. As to "useless," the stimulus never calls it useless, nor does it imply that it is useless. It says that prior experience is of little value, i.e. it may help (and probably will) but it cannot guarantee success.

KayM793 Wrote:Also I'm having some trouble diagraming this stimulus.


Here is how I would diagram it:

1) successful foreign policy <---SOME---> ~(prior experience)

2) APS + DT + AtoA ----> successful foreign policy

3) prior experience ----/---> successful foreign policy.

where: APS = acute political sense
DT = disciplined temperament
AtoA = ability to absorb (and retain information)

1) shows that prior experience is not a necessary condition. 3) shows that it is not sufficient, either. Hence, (B) is the right answer.