Q19 - Amy McConnell is considering running

[yama_sekander]

i am wondering why C is wrong.
the argument says that anything scandalous from Lutz would lead to McConnell campaigning for election.




so i interpreted as this

SLutz--->Melect.

did i get this reversed or is C wrong because campaigning for election is not equivocal to running against him???

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

the argument says that anything scandalous from Lutz would lead to McConnell campaigning for election.




so i interpreted as this

SLutz--->Melect.

did i get this reversed or is C wrong because campaigning for election is not equivocal to running against him???

Okay so it's a bit more complicated than you have it Yama!

We have three conditional statements:

LCF ---> ~R
~LCF + SR ----> R
~LCF + ~SR ---> ~R

Notation Key: LCF = large campaign fund, R = run for election, SR = scandalous record

So the statement you were looking at was actually....

If Lutz doesn't have a large campaign fund, but he has a scandalous record, then McConnell will run.

Answer choice (C) could be true, because Lutz might have a large campaign fund. Answer choice (D) though must be false, because whether Lutz has a large campaign fund or not, if he has a clean record, then McConnell should not be running. But answer choice (D) says that she would.

(A) could be true if Lutz has a clean record
(B) could be true. If has a scandalous record, but no large campaign fund, then McConnell could run
(C) could be true because Lutz might have a large campaign fund
(E) could be true. In fact if Lutz has a large campaign fund, then McConnell will definitely not run against him.

Hope that helps, let me know if you still have a question on this one though!

[Mab6q]

the argument says that anything scandalous from Lutz would lead to McConnell campaigning for election.




so i interpreted as this

SLutz--->Melect.

did i get this reversed or is C wrong because campaigning for election is not equivocal to running against him???

Okay so it's a bit more complicated than you have it Yama!

We have three conditional statements:

LCF ---> ~R
~LCF + SR ----> R
~LCF + ~SR ---> ~R

Notation Key: LCF = large campaign fund, R = run for election, SR = scandalous record

So the statement you were looking at was actually....

If Lutz doesn't have a large campaign fund, but he has a scandalous record, then McConnell will run.

Answer choice (C) could be true, because Lutz might have a large campaign fund. Answer choice (D) though must be false, because whether Lutz has a large campaign fund or not, if he has a clean record, then McConnell should not be running. But answer choice (D) says that she would.

(A) could be true if Lutz has a clean record
(B) could be true. If has a scandalous record, but no large campaign fund, then McConnell could run
(C) could be true because Lutz might have a large campaign fund
(E) could be true. In fact if Lutz has a large campaign fund, then McConnell will definitely not run against him.

Hope that helps, let me know if you still have a question on this one though!

I'm not a fan of what the LSAT did with this question. The same problem that plagues D is also apparent in D.

For D, I don't think we can take equate ~anything scandalous in nature with having a clean record. It could be the record is not clean without having something scandalous in nature. Sure, you could say that it's not a big leap to make, but it's just as big as leaping from from campaigning for election to running.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure which other answer choice you were objecting to because you said (D) has the same problem as (D).

I assume you're asking about (C), but Matt's explanation had nothing to do with a gap between "campaigning for election" vs. "running against him".

(C) is wrong because in a world in which Lutz has a scandalous record and a large campaign fund, McConnell would NOT run against him. So (C) could be true.

========

As far as these two language shifts, I don't see anything wrong with going from "nothing of a scandalous nature ... not even a hint" to "clean record".

I also don't see a problem with going from "campaigning for election" to "run against him".

Those are pretty interchangeable synonyms in this context.

I know that a lot of LSAT must be true/false type stuff uses verbatim matches, but not always. Just find the credited response. Which one seems most legit?

The majority of must be false questions just contradict a conditional.

To contradict a conditional, such as A --> B, you need to say:
something is A but ~B

(D) says that Lutz HAS a clean record, but McConnell WILL run against him.

That's contradicts the conditional in the final sentence.
(A but ~B)

(A) in order for "not run against him" to be a contradiction, we would need to hear that Lutz DOES have something of a scandalous nature and DOESN'T already have a large campaign fund.

(B) in order for "she runs against him" to be a contradiction, we would need to hear that Lutz DOES have a clean record.

(C) Same as (A). This gives us one of the two facts we need to trigger "M will run against him"

(E) This is actually must be true.