Surprised that there is no discussion on this one.
I think it is clear that what is needed for the conclusion to follow logically is that Stevens must be a certified psychoanalyst.
Where I have a problem is that none of the answers available give that he is a "certified psychoanalyst." (A) comes closest but does not tell us that he is certified. Isn't it possible that he is a psychoanalyst but not certified? I think it is debatable.
However (B) gives that The Journal frequently accepts Stevens' articles. Now, if The Journal did frequently accept Stevens' articles for publication then the conclusion would follow logically, for under this situation it is given that Stevens is a certified psychoanalyst, else the articles submitted could not be published.
Granted, (B) does in fact leave out the words "for publication" but in context I thought it could be taken to mean "accepted [for publication]."
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated -- thank you.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- jsdulberg
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 7
- Joined: December 12th, 2014
-
- rinagoldfield
-
Thanks Received: 308
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 390
- Joined: December 13th, 2011
Re: Q11 - The annual Journal
Thanks, jsdulberg. I think you are making the same mistake on this problem as I made my first time through. You are interpreting it as a sufficient assumption question. You write:
"Now, if The Journal did frequently accept Stevens' articles for publication then the conclusion would follow logically"
But… this is an inference question! We are not trying to make any conclusion follow logically. There is no conclusion. Our task is to take the stimulus as a series of facts, and draw our own conclusion.
The stimulus tells us:
Published --> submitted before March 6 AND written by a certified psychoanalyst.
Stevens’s article was published, and was submitted before March 6.
We can conclude that he is a certified psychoanalyst, since we know his article was published.
(A) Is correct – it gives us the above conclusion. All certified psychoanalysts are psychoanalysts, so it doesn’t matter that this answer choice lacks the word “certified.”
(B) Is not inferable. The stimulus doesn’t indicate whether this Journal has published Stevens’s work before.
(C) Is too specific. We don’t know about Stevens’s expertise.
(D) Takes a step too far. While we know that the Journal solicits articles, we don’t know whether it solicited this article.
(E) Is out of scope. Who cares about interesting?
Remember: inference question stems and sufficient assumption question stems often both include the phrase “follows logically.” But these question types are NOT the same!!
"Now, if The Journal did frequently accept Stevens' articles for publication then the conclusion would follow logically"
But… this is an inference question! We are not trying to make any conclusion follow logically. There is no conclusion. Our task is to take the stimulus as a series of facts, and draw our own conclusion.
The stimulus tells us:
Published --> submitted before March 6 AND written by a certified psychoanalyst.
Stevens’s article was published, and was submitted before March 6.
We can conclude that he is a certified psychoanalyst, since we know his article was published.
(A) Is correct – it gives us the above conclusion. All certified psychoanalysts are psychoanalysts, so it doesn’t matter that this answer choice lacks the word “certified.”
(B) Is not inferable. The stimulus doesn’t indicate whether this Journal has published Stevens’s work before.
(C) Is too specific. We don’t know about Stevens’s expertise.
(D) Takes a step too far. While we know that the Journal solicits articles, we don’t know whether it solicited this article.
(E) Is out of scope. Who cares about interesting?
Remember: inference question stems and sufficient assumption question stems often both include the phrase “follows logically.” But these question types are NOT the same!!
2 posts Page 1 of 1