Subscription pricing
PT31.2.10 "Nothing that one should not have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure"
If I shouldn't have desired it in the first place ----> it is a pleasure?
If I desire it in the first place-----> fails to be a pleasure?
Dear lord this is frustrating haha
0
3 comments
I think it's the first one you did. Nothing would be negate necessary indicator and fails would be a negative. So you'd get "If you should not have desired it in the first place, then it is a pleasure". No one who studies for the LSAT fails to be annoyed by its garbled grammar. :smile:
This question really pissed me off. I tried translating the premises using symbols and did not get the same sufficient assumption as the answer choice. Drove me insane.
My successful attempt at solving this question was achieved by assigning simple variables to the larger statements. So I said, “If something is A (justifiably regretted if it had not occurred) then that something is B (a thing I should not have desired in the first place). This made the logical map clear A --> B. Now the conclusion states C (forgone pleasures) some B (a thing I should not have desired in the first place).” So then the task became simple: I need to connect A to C in (at least) a –some- relationship. Prephrase: “Some forgone pleasures –C- are –A- things I would regret had they not occurred” . Answer choice (D) fits like a glove (but uses –many- instead of –some-).