Subscription pricing
Hi all,
I've been struggling to understand this question for quite some time.. What is clearly given in the stimulus is a one way conditional:
IF Authors blah blah... --> A work counts as being interpreted
But the right answer.. basically relies on negating the sufficient conditions given, to reach the conclusion that it can't be interpreted. So it seems to me that the question is assuming that the reverse (so biconditional) holds. I tried to justify this answer by saying that MSS inference questions aren't as strict as MBT, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the inconsistency, as in other questions, we were able to/meant to rule out wrong answers on the basis that it was a mistaken reversal.
Is it something about the wording in this stimulus that necessitates understanding of the "IF" here as a bi-conditional? I'd appreciate any insight into this question!!
Admin note: edited title
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-3-question-24/
0
2 comments
@kevinjameslin834 said:
I think it has to do with the language "counts as … if at least". That statement is conveying a definition, and definitions can be seen as bi-conditionals. Being interpreted in a national tradition is defined as doing any one of 3 things: X, Y, Z.
Right @kevinjameslin834 ! I was thinking something along those lines... That's just not something that I would have known had the correct answer not relied on a biconditional relationship. But next time I'll know if there's some kind of definition, I'll be more open to the idea that bi-condi is implied!
To add a little more, I also found a similar question in PT 57 where the stimulus talks about "THE law" so we have to assume that's the only conditions given, and thus bi-conditional. LSAT is sneaky..!!
I think it has to do with the language "counts as … if at least". That statement is conveying a definition, and definitions can be seen as bi-conditionals. Being interpreted in a national tradition is defined as doing any one of 3 things: X, Y, Z.