User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q15 - Theodore will be able to file

by ohthatpatrick Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:

Conclusion: T won't be able to file on time.
Evidence:
Filing on time ---requires--> acct prepares it AND acct does not ask for add'l docs.
If acct. prepares it --> acct. WILL ask for add'l docs.

Answer Anticipation:
Sound argument. The 1st sentence gives us some thing, X, that has two requirements, A and B. But then we learn that if A occurs, then B will not occur. So clearly, X is not achievable. I would be looking for two premises: both condiitonal. One of them needs to have an "and" on the right side. If X, then A and B. The other conditional needs to make A and B seem mutually exclusive. And then the conclusion will say not-X.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.

(B) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.

(C) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.

(D) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.

(E) Yes! Relaxing vacation (X) ---requires---> well behaved kids (A) and no suspicion (B). And the 2nd premise says that (A) and (B) are mutually exclusive. And the conclusion says "not relaxing vacation".

Takeaway/Pattern: When the original argument uses conditional logic or any other highly symbolic form of deriving its conclusion (f.e. quantified logic, like "most + most"), then we can really aggressively read the answer choices intially seeing if they even have the symbolic ingredients we need, before we think any harder about them. The most signature symbolic ingredient in this argument was its first premise: "X --> A and B". It's easy to read for a conditional with an "and" on the consequence. A through D did not have that, so very little time should have been spent looking at them. We shouldn't have made it to the end of any of them. Once we see the "and" conditional we were craving in E, we can't just pick it, but we can thoughtfully confirm it matches and then pick it.

#officialexplanation
 
cimani.w
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 8
Joined: January 17th, 2011
 
 
 

Q15 - Theodore will be able to file

by cimani.w Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:04 pm

Can you explain why the answer choice is not c and the answer is E? also how would you diagram the stimulus and the answer choice c and e?
User avatar
 
bbirdwell
Thanks Received: 864
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 803
Joined: April 16th, 2009
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q15 - Theodore will be able to file

by bbirdwell Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:34 am

First let's diagram the argument:

1. Theodore can file on time --> accountant prepares AND doesn't ask for extra stuff

2. accountant prepares --> accountant asks for extra stuff

Therefore, Theodore cannot file on time.

Notice that this reasoning is totally fine: the only way he can make it in time is if the accountant prepares AND doesn't ask, but this is impossible because we know that if the accountant prepares, he is definitely going to ask.

Make sense so far?

(C)
1. Children content --> play some video games
This is already not a good match and there is about a 2% chance it can make a turn and become the correct answer. Just look at the first statement from the original. This one is missing some complexity on the right side.

2. Play video games --> no other plans
Again, not a match. Look at the original. The second statement should just include the two items from the right side of the first statement.

Therefore, Children content --> take a break from other plans


A conditional conclusion?! Whoa! This is not a match at all! Furthermore, the original conclusion doesn't contain any new elements, just a negation of something we already had (we had "theodore can file," and the conclusion simply says theodore cannot file). This conclusion contains something new: "take a break."

As soon as we see that the conclusion of (C) is conditional, though, we can eliminate it immediately. If nothing else, that's what I would take away from this if I were you.

(E)
1. S has relaxing vacation --> children behave well AND does not suspect mischief

Notice already that this is a great match -- a conditional statement with two items on the right side, connected by "and."

2. behave well --> suspect mischief

At this point we should be 95% certain that this is the right answer. The first statement was a spot-on match, and the second one is as well: it contains the two elements from the right side of the first statement, and in a parallel relationship. The only way this can go wrong is to have mismatched conclusion.

Therefore, S cannot have relaxing vacation.

A simple negation of the left side of the first statement. Perfect match!

Does that help?
I host free online workshop/Q&A sessions called Zen and the Art of LSAT. You can find upcoming dates here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm