Q25 - Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease

[dre.wat.son987]

I choose to diagram this question and I am having two issues:

1. I am having trouble diagraming the third sentence "But no negotiations...either side"

2. I can't see why A is the correct answer

Can someone diagram this question and explain why A is correct?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here's the formal logic solution to this question...

1. ~CV --> NB
2. NB --> CP
3. AE --> CP
4. NB --> TCA
5. TCA --> SIF

Kinda complicated and really wordy but, here are the translations.

~CV = ceasefire is not violated
NB = negotiations begin
CP = countries pressure
AE = agreement emerge
TCA = troops counter aggression
SIF = suppress major incentive to fight

From the question stem, we learn that negotiations do begin. Then the question says each of the following must be true EXCEPT.

(A) is tricky but is the reversal of the 1st conditional above. Remember reversals and negatives are not logically inferable, so while it could be true, it doesn't have to be. Only the contrapositive is inferable from a conditional.
(B) must be true from the 4th conditional above
(C) must be true from combining the 4 and 5th conditionals above
(D) must be true from the 2nd conditional
(E) must be true from the 3rd conditional above

Hope this helps!

[niohelang]

yet I still have a question about choice E. In the stem it says that by the time the negotiations begins, which of the following could not be true. Since E talks about whether the negotiations actually bring to an agreement, it is not known whether they have reached such an agreement. So how would we interpret the stem in order for E to be correct?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Based on the third statement from above, an agreement will emerge only if countries continues such pressure. This is a rule, that is always applicable. At any time before or after an agreement has been reached, reaching that agreement does depend on the actions of other countries - they must continue to pressure the two sides to reach an agreement.

General rules (conditional statements) do not generally have time limitations or periods where the rule is not applicable.

[misseliz.davidson]

[quote="mattsherman"]Here's the formal logic solution to this question...

1. ~CV --> NB
2. NB --> CP
3. AE --> CP
4. NB --> TCA
5. TCA --> SIF

Hi! I have done this question for the third time after not looking at it for months and still can't figure out why and how it is accessible to equate the first sentence's "negotiations begin soon" with the other two mention of "negotiations".

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi! I have done this question for the third time after not looking at it for months and still can't figure out why and how it is accessible to equate the first sentence's "negotiations begin soon" with the other two mention of "negotiations".

I think the issue you're facing is whether "negotiations are held" and "negotiations begin soon" are the same term. And I believe your thought is that they're not (i.e. there's a difference between them being held and being held soon), right?

I agree that they're not the same thing exactly, but the question stem wants to know what must be true at the time negotiations begin. We're not being asked to connect the term "negotiations" across the conditional relationships within the stimulus, but rather infer from one of the statements given that information in the question stem will trigger the application of the conditional rule.

If negotiations are held, international troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated their ability to counter any aggression from either side.

Hope that helps!

[Mikey]

I'm having significant trouble with this question. I originally chose E, but after reading the above explanations, I see why E is wrong but I still cannot fully understand how A is right. The first sentence of the stim says that cease-fire will be violated if negotiations don't begin soon. (A) says that the cease-fire has not been violated by either of the two sides, yet the question says that negotiations have begun. If negotiations have begun, shouldn't A be true, that neither side have violated the cease-fire? Very confusing for me

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The issue is that you've misinterpreted the first sentence.

The first sentence of the stim says that cease-fire will be violated if negotiations don't begin soon.

What it really says is that "Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated." If you put that it in "if/then" form, it would read, "If the cease fire has not been violated, then negotiations did begin soon." Given that we know that the negotiations did begin soon, we cannot say whether or not the cease-fire has been violated. We cannot reverse the logic of the conditional statement and infer anything from the fact that negotiations did begin soon.

Think of it this way...

If I live in New York City, then I live in New York State. But given that I live in New York State, does that then imply that I live in New York City? Not necessarily. That could be false.

Hope that helps!

[Mikey]

The issue is that you've misinterpreted the first sentence.

The first sentence of the stim says that cease-fire will be violated if negotiations don't begin soon.

What it really says is that "Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated." If you put that it in "if/then" form, it would read, "If the cease fire has not been violated, then negotiations did begin soon." Given that we know that the negotiations did begin soon, we cannot say whether or not the cease-fire has been violated. We cannot reverse the logic of the conditional statement and infer anything from the fact that negotiations did begin soon.

Think of it this way...

If I live in New York City, then I live in New York State. But given that I live in New York State, does that then imply that I live in New York City? Not necessarily. That could be false.

Hope that helps!

That helped a lot, thanks!