Subscription pricing
So where is the key piece of evidence that I should really focus on in this question? The conditional is throwing me off.
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-10/
0
So where is the key piece of evidence that I should really focus on in this question? The conditional is throwing me off.
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-10/
6 comments
Ok thanks a lot @nye887085
Yes, you can. But a lot of times going through that process takes up too much time, for me. I think it is very important to understand the fundamental workings of question type but then it is also important to be able to quickly spot (intuitively sense) the bridge or block you need for the argument to hold. Try watching @ltownsjr916 's workshop: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6390/webinar-workshop-videos
Ok, so you can think of it in terms of conditional reasoning? (a little)
First thing to recognize is that “mass evasion of the charge will result” is the logical equivalent to ”payment of charge will not be effectively enforced”. I’d like to call these MEOCR.
Premise: /system --> MEOCR
Conclusion: Plan implemented (for some period of time) --> MEOCR
In order for the conclusion (that while the plan is implemented people are evading payment) then the system must not be operational during that time.
Ac(A) says The mayor’s plan to charge for driving downtown will be implemented “before” the end of next year.
With this answer we are affirming a situation where the plan is in action but before the all important sophisticated system that ensures charge enforcement. W/O that system, people will evade charges.
Thanks, but I'm still a little lost. So I totally get what you're saying, but there wasn't anything that broke down the structure like this P-->C??
This relies on timeline-thinking. Ask yourself exactly when the mayor plans to implement the plan. If it's before the tech is ready then the conclusion could be true. In fact the only way the conclusion can be true is if there is a period before tech is employed where people can evade payment. So the key piece of evidence, for me, was understanding the timeline.