Q24 - Most of the employees

[LSAT-Chang]

I picked (A) as a random guess because I was running out of time, and then I went back and re-did this and didn't quite get it. I was down to (A), (B) and (C).

Here are my thoughts:

The flaw that I pointed out in the original argument was that just because most computer programmers receive excellent salaries doesn't mean that at least one Compujack employee must receive an excellent salary from Compujack. It could be possible that unfortunately, all computer programmers in Compujack Corp. are not among the "most computer programmers who receive excellent salaries from their employers".

So I diagrammed this as something like:

A (most employees of Compujack) --> B (computer programmer)
B (most computer programmer) --> C (receive excellent salary)
__________________
A (at least one Compujack employee) --> C (receive excellent salary)

So with this in mind, I found that (A) was pretty close since it gave me:

A (most gardeners) --> B (great deal of patience)
C (most Molly's classmates) --> A (gardeners)
_____________________________________
C (some Molly's classmates) --> B (great deal of patience)

The only difference I found was that for the original argument, we would cover up "B" so we get A --> C, whereas with answer choice (A), we would cover up "A" so we get C --> B. Does this make sense?

But then when I read (B) and (C).. that was when I started getting a little confused.

So (B) gives me:

A (most Molly's classmates) --> B (gardeners)
B (most gardeners) --> C (great deal of patience)
________________________________________
A (some Molly's classmates) --> C (great deal of patience)

I felt like this was the exact same reasoning with the actual argument. The ONLY thing I noticed was that the conclusion for the argument was "MUST BE" whereas this answer choice had "COULD BE"... but since I didn't read chapter 12 of the strategy guide yet, I wasn't sure if this was one way to eliminate answer choices. Does the book mention this? I skimmed through it just now but didn't spot anything yet.

With (C):
A (most gardeners) --> B (great deal of patience)
C (Molly's classmates) --> A (gardeners)
________________________________________
C (at least one Molly's classmates) --> A (gardener) --> B (great deal of patience)

I am not sure if I diagrammed that correctly, but do we diagram the sentence "at least one of Molly's classmates who is a gardener" as "at least one of Molly's classmates --> gardener"? I wasn't sure on this one... And even if I just work with the general "flaw", I feel like (C) sounds totally right -- the only difference is that it is reiterating that at least one of Molly's classmates "WHO IS A GARDENER" must be a person with a great deal of patience. Do my questions make sense??

[chike_eze]

I think I also spaced out on this one during actual PT. On review, it was quite tricky for me as well.

Here's what I eventually came up with...

Argument:
Most Employees -> Programmers
Most Programmers -> excellent Salary
therefore,
At least one Employee -> excellent Salary

abstract argument:
Most X are Y
Most Y are Z
therefore,
At least one X is Z

Flaw: Assumes that because Most X are Y, that Most Y are X.

Correct = (A) Most Gardners -> Patience
Most Classmates -> Gardners
At least one Classmate -> Patience

Note: this matches the original argument, it's just out of order.
abstraction:
Most C are G
Most G are P
therefore, At least one C is P

(B) Most C are G, most G are P; therefore, At least one C could be P
> This is valid because of conclusion "could be" true or false

(C) most C are G, Most G are P, therefore, At least one C (that's also G) is P
> This is flawed, but it doesn't quite match the original flaw

(D) Term shift: "gardners" does not match "classmates who garden"
> Classmates who garden are not necessarily gardners. Flaw doesn't match prompt.

(E) is a valid argument!

[LSAT-Chang]

(C) most C are G, Most G are P, therefore, At least one C (that's also G) is P
> This is flawed, but it doesn't quite match the original flaw

Hey chike_eze!
So you are saying that just the part about "(that's also G)" is what is different right? Because everything else aside from that is actually a clear match with the original argument. Just because they clarified in (C) what that "at least one C" was.. that's why it doesn't match with the original one??

[chike_eze]

Hey chike_eze!
So you are saying that just the part about "(that's also G)" is what is different right? Because everything else aside from that is actually a clear match with the original argument. Just because they clarified in (C) what that "at least one C" was.. that's why it doesn't match with the original one??

Yes, I believe that's what I'm saying. I drew venn diagrams to analyze C and A -- C is off, but only slightly.

See attached diagram ->

Venn_Analysis_CandD.pdf

(210.64 KiB) Downloaded 551 times

PS. And you can call me "Chike"

[maryadkins]

Great discussion!

Hopefully Chike's explanation clarified things? If not, let me know... but Chike is right that (C) presents a different flaw. Its structure doesn't align with the stimulus the way (A)'s does.

[jamiejames]

Here's what I diagrammed for 24.

EC = employees of Compujack
CP = computer programmers
ES = excellent salaries

EC --(most)--> CP
CP --(most) ES
EC --(some) ES

answer choice A:

G = gardener
GDP = great deal of patience
MC = Molly's classmates

G --(most)--> GDP
MC --(most)--> G
MC --(some)--> GDP

re-aranged to match structure of stimulus


MC --(most)--> G
G --(most)--> GDP
MC --(some)--> GDP


could someone see if my logic here is correct, thank you!

[timmydoeslsat]

Your logic is correct.

[sumukh09]

If B) ended with, "some of Molly's classmates MUST BE people with a great deal of patience," it would be correct, correct?

[maryadkins]

Yep!

[jonathangroffman]

Hi,
I understand why B is wrong since the stimulus says MUST BE and B says COULD BE, but what I don't get it how you can just rearrange A so that it fits.

I saw the stimulus as
A --> B
B --> C
A-->C

When I saw that answer A was:
A -->B
C-->A
C-->B
I thought that made it wrong.

I see how if you rearrange the way it was written that it works, but how can we just do that?

[maryadkins]

Absolutely you can do that. The order of the statements does not matter. The LOGICAL sequence matters. You are not comparing the order in which statements appear.

Memorize this, then memorize it again; it is very important.

[hyk1310]

Dear Mary,

I have a question regarding the flaw of the argument, not the answer choice.

In analyzing Most A-->B, Most B-->C, therefore AL one A must be C,

would the flaw be something along the lines of: If there was a sufficiently small pool of A, and a very large pool of B, to the point where a majority of A would not be the same as the Majority of B, this argument would not hold true?

For example, if Most A meant 4 people, and Most B meant something like 9999 people, then Most B would not necessarily be C since it may not include Most A's 4 people.

Please let me know if this is the correct flaw, because I don't think that the above posters mentioned the right flaw.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think you're onto it with thinking about extreme mismatches of group sizes.

If I say
"Most people on death row are men"
and
"Most men take a car/train/bus to work each day",
does that mean
"at least one person on death row takes a car/train/bus to work each day"?

Of course not!

Maybe there are 50 people on death row, so at least 26 of them are men.

Well those 26 men don't HAVE to be among the 51% or more of men that go to work each day.

Those 26 men could easily be among the 49% or less of men that DON'T take a car/train/bus to work each day.

The only Most+Most inference you can draw requires that BOTH "most" facts are about the same group
Most ppl on death row have tattoos
+
Most ppl on death row have killed someone
========================
at least one person with a tattoo has killed someone