Q13 - Politician: The bill that makes

[tamwaiman]

It seems like a sufficient-assumed question, which need to fill up a gap to deduce the conclusion--the bill should be adopted.

But I cannot find out the answer. Is there any formal logic or method to solve this question smoothly?

Thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

There absolutely is! I'm glad that you're looking for conditional logic on this one, and it feels like it might be there (or that it should be there), because this is a Sufficient Assumption question. And conditional logic is the norm for this sort of question. But on this one there isn't really any good place to start mapping things out using notation.

So... Here's the lesson! If you're on a Sufficient Assumption question and you don't see conditional logic, but you do see a conclusion that is very subjective, check the evidence. If the evidence is not subjective, the assumption will be. And while this is not common on the LSAT, it is consistent.

See the word "should" in the conclusion. That's a recommendation, and to prove it, we'll need some evidence about what people should be doing. But there isn't any! So the correct answer should involve that subjectivity. Notice the correct answer (D) tells us that the bill "should be adopted." According to answer choice (D), any bill that will reduce a threat to public safety (which this bill will do), should be adopted - which is the conclusion of the politician.

(A) doesn't establish the conclusion about whether to adopt this bill.
(B) is the most tempting of the incorrect answers and guarantees that if we wanted to do something about this problem that this bill would be the way to go, but doesn't actually guarantee that we want to do something about this problem.
(C) might be implied, but is not an assumption that establishes the conclusion.
(E) weakens the conclusion.

Does that answer your question? Remember that other words can imply subjectivity: should, ought, preferred, better than, etc..

[mcrittell]

Is it really that simple--because the conclusion has "should" and the evidence doesn't imply one one should ought to do, that the answer choice should include a "should"-type word?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So I wouldn't gaurantee that you could follow that rule 100% of the time and always have it work effectively, but I'm not aware of any questions that have been written since 1991 where you could follow that rule and eliminate the correct answer. That said, you may still have to do some work because there might be more than one answer remaining after checking that the answer choice guarantees the recommendation/subjective conclusion.

And this is not something that comes along all the time. This is pretty rare - though I find useful to know.

Btw, you can also use this on Principle Support questions.

[bearknowsthetrooth]

What confused me about this one was that I tried to deny the assumption but it didn't destroy the argument. "Not any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted" doesn't necessarily mean that this particular one shouldn't be adopted. Are we supposed to not use denials in some assumption questions?

[WaltGrace1983]

What confused me about this one was that I tried to deny the assumption but it didn't destroy the argument. "Not any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted" doesn't necessarily mean that this particular one shouldn't be adopted. Are we supposed to not use denials in some assumption questions?

We typically do not do this for sufficient assumption questions, only necessary assumption questions. Look at this example:

"Your dog doesn't like cats. Therefore, your dog attacked my cat"

(A) All dogs that don't like cats attack all cats

if we negate this we get something like:

"Not all dogs that don't like cats attack all cats" Does this destroy the argument? No. Is this a sufficient assumption? Absolutely.

Someone let me know if I did this wrong.

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

I would argue that it destroys the argument to the extent that you can't assume the conclusion anymore based simply on the premises, so it does "destroy" the argument (if an argument is defined as something that OUGHT to make sense as written).

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

Hey Walt,

I would argue that it destroys the argument to the extent that you can't assume the conclusion anymore based simply on the premises, so it does "destroy" the argument (if an argument is defined as something that OUGHT to make sense as written).

-t

Ah I see what you are saying there, my mistake. However, I guess what I was really trying to say is that it is not like the argument cannot in any possible world work given that negated answer choice (just because not EVERY dog attacks all cats doesn't mean that your dog attacked the cat). The negated answer choice just doesn't 100% lead to the conclusion but even the negated answer choice could still work in some possible world. Is this what you meant or is my understanding lacking?

[tommywallach]

Exactly, Walt. You're still correct (the argument is NOT totally destroyed), but it's destroyed enough to qualify for the little negation game. : )

-t

[donghai819]

See the word "should" in the conclusion. That's a recommendation, and to prove it, we'll need some evidence about what people should be doing. But there isn't any! So the correct answer should involve that subjectivity.

Hey Matt, I'm not sure if you can answer me. I have a question, in the quote you addressed that "But there isnt any!". I am thinking if the last sentence "People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so." is the evidence. Any help is highly appreciated!


Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

What word or concept in the last sentence are you saying conveys a sense of what "should" be done?

It looks to me to be a dry statement of cause and effect.

If it were illegal to kiss your own children, people would be deterred from doing so as frequently.

This is also a statement of cause and effect. Is anyone proposing that it SHOULD be illegal to kiss your own kids?

I think you might just be applying your own filter of whether an "effect" is desirable or not. You might be thinking "deterring people from using their phones while driving" is an outcome we SHOULD pursue.

But that hasn't been explicitly said. To logically prove a conclusion, EVERYTHING has to be explicitly said. There are no missing ideas, no assumptions, no undefined terms.

Hope this helps.