Q16 - Last year, a software company held

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Entered contest → Receive T-shirt
Juan has T-shirt
________________________________
Juan entered contest

Answer Anticipation:
Classic, LSAT! Classic illegal reversal.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Correlation vs. Causation). The argument isn't causal.

(B) Bingo. This is the classic "classic reversal" answer choice. Yes, I've said "classic" too many times in this explanation.

(C) Wrong flaw (Parts vs. Whole). While the conclusion is about an individual, the premise isn't about a group he's necessarily a part of.

(D) Wrong flaw (Circular Reasoning). Often included, but rarely correct! There's no premise that repeats the conclusion.

(E) Wrong flaw (Bad Generalization). When the conclusion is about a single instance, a Bad Generalization can't have happened.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Conditional language in an ID the Flaw question? That's probably where the argument goes wrong.

#officialexplanation

[adamB949]

In your graph getting a tshirt is a necessary condition but doesn't (b) state the opposite. (B) says he takes a condition that is Sufficient as one that is NECESSARY, but doesn't he actually take a condition that is necessary as one that is sufficient.

[sev]

In your graph getting a tshirt is a necessary condition but doesn't (b) state the opposite. (B) says he takes a condition that is Sufficient as one that is NECESSARY, but doesn't he actually take a condition that is necessary as one that is sufficient.

Had the exact same reaction as I read it the exact same way: legit spent 5 minutes on this question. We both read the flaw as implying that: "having a t-shirt is necessary for you to have participated in the contest, but not sufficient to do so."

But there's a second way to interpret the flaw: entering the contest is sufficient to get you a t-shirt but not necessary to get you the t-shirt.

laskdjfakjsdlfklasjdf. Questions with multiple flaws in them get me all the freaking time.