If "only" is an indicator for a necessary condition under group 2, the set is Contracts. the Sub-set then will be unlikely bankrupt. if the managers thinks the companies won't go bankrupt (placing a dot in the subset), then it does automatically guarantee a contract because contracts is the necessary condition, the set, in which the smaller circle (the subset), unlikely bankrupt, resides in. Why then does it say "Does that mean that companies they don’t think will go bankrupt automatically get the contract? No, but managers thinking these companies are unlikely to go bankrupt is a necessary condition for them to be considered for a contract." ?
@Clayclaypaws okay jk I figured it out: the word "only" is logically modifying the type of company they hire, not the verb "contract," even though it sits right next to the verb.
In everyday English, the word "only" often floats in front of the verb instead of sitting exactly next to the thing it modifies. Think about the sentence, "I only eat pizza."
D is a sneaky answer. However, it's not well supported, it's just one possible hypothesis.
E is more strongly supported because despite the other small interior designs winning more awards (correlates to being superior), that doesn't change the fact that corporate managers give contracts to large companies.
I got hung up on the fact that the small design companies were getting prestigious awards for corporate work. I didn't understand how they could be getting awarded for doing corporate work if they fail the necessary condition for getting a contract. I still don't get it.
@SavanahHoffstein yeah that is confusing. Maybe the small firms have won awards for their proposals or renders/mockups for corporate projects, but have never actually been awarded a contract, idk.
Note to class: This problem contains a grammatical error with its "only" in the stimulus. In casual spoken English, we often put "only" before a verb out of habit, leaving context and vocal inflection to do all the work for the meaning. However, in writing, this creates bad literal meanings. "Only" being next to "contract" creates the question, why aren't you going to do anything else with them? Is that the only Verb?
Think of it like this:
Misplaced: "I only ate three slices of pizza."
Literal meaning: The only action you performed on the pizza was eating it (you didn't bake, smell, or buy it).
Corrected: "I ate only three slices of pizza." - Meaning you only ate 3 slices, not 4,5,6, etc.
In this problem, the necessary indicator is not next to what it indicates because it uses spoken language.
For MSS questions, is it recommended that we evaluate each answer choice? I recognize that may be wasteful, but I am wondering about a scenario where multiple choices provide strength for support but vary in their intensity of strength. Is this a rare phenomenon or something that happens at all, I.e. a weakly supported answer and a strongly supported answer rather than one supported answer and other unsupported choices.
I'm having trouble distinguishing the "We don't know this / we can't assume this" answer choices with "How do you know?" with other answer choices. Anyone else?? How should I know which way to assume?
@jennawiese I'm just hoping as I move through all the modules, the LSAT way of thinking will start to be more clear. I am getting a lot of drill questions wrong on the 'trap' type of answer
I really wish that the stimulus, question stem, and answers were just displayed at the start of the lesson so I could try to break it down myself first, then go to the review. Even jumping through the video, the answer is marked and there's too many scribbles to concentrate :(
Context: Baxe Interiors, one of the largest interior design companies in existence, currently has a near monopoly in the corporate market.
Concession: Several small design companies have won prestigious awards for their corporate work, while Baxe has won none.
Conclusion: Nonetheless, the corporate managers who solicit design proposals will only contract with companies they believe are unlikely to go bankrupt, and they believe that only very large companies are unlikely to go bankrupt.
The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
a. There are other very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe's. wrong.
b. Baxe does not have a near monopoly in the market of any category of interior design other than corporate interiors. Incorrect.
c. For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are superior to the designs produced by Baxe. Incorrect. Several and most aren't equal to each other.
d. At least some of the corporate managers who solicit design proposals are unaware that there are designs that are much better than those produced by Baxe. Incorrect.
e. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market. True.
Something I really struggle with is how to know when to make inferences. For example in answer choice C, the assumption was made that other small companies winning prestigious awards (and Baxe not) may insinuate that some of those small companies have designs superior to Baxe. This seems like a reasonable conclusion to make but that's the issue. I make assumptions like this all the time that I feel are reasonably justified and they trap me. How do I know when an inference is actually valid vs. trying to trap me?
@KateLevinson You are correct that it is reasonable to assume "some small companies have designs superior to Baxe" because "some" meaning "at least one" is easy to prove in this case. However, answer choice C says "for the most part" which implies that "most" small companies have better designs. We cannot make conclusions on "most" small companies because the stimulus only mentions "several." If you go back to the Foundations lessons, specifically Logic of Intersecting Sets Quantifier Inferences, there is a lesson about how all implies most and most implies some (All -> Most -> Some), but you cannot reverse the direction of the arrows (you cannot imply most from some).
@puddingeveryday I eliminated C as an option, but for a different reason. I thought that equating receiving awards for superior designs was assuming too much. There could be various reasons that they received awards while Baxe didn't. The awards could require you to apply for consideration and Baxe didn't do so, or the awards were specific to smaller companies, etc. etc.
Is this line of thinking incorrect and I just got lucky? Or is this just another angle to approach the questionn?
@JoshuaTWilkins I would not necessarily say that you “got lucky” because your line of reasoning is still correct (winning awards does not technically equal superior designs), but the bigger issue with answer choice C is that it some ≠ most. They are both assumptions that the author makes, but the first, (winning awards = superior designs) is a lot more reasonable of an assumption for the author to make than the second (some design awards = most of their designs are superior). For example if answer choice C said “At least ONE design produced by a small company is superior to the designs produced by Baxe” that would be reasonable because several design companies winning awards for their design work reasonably implies that at least one of their designs are superior, it does not imply that MOST are superior. (recall most means majority).
I think this is an interesting passage because it's one of the few that doesn't contain an argument. It's a statement of a phenomenon and then a statement of a causal explanation of the phenomenon (in the conditional chain), but the conclusion is not explicitly stated.
My logic for answering this was that since baxe has a monopoly but hasn't won any awards, the other design companies do not threaten its nearly monopoly because they have shown they can preform better to some extent yet Baxe still obtains contracts.
Is the way I did this dangerous? I didn't map out the conditional logic, and a lot of times I don't. Now I worry that this may impact my success in the future.
This question forces you to make the assumption that because small design companies have won prestigious awards for their designs that they are superior to those of Baxe.
@eaoneil yeah, I think the logic chain was backwards, and i think it was just because of how the information was processed. Being a large chain and being unlikely to go bankrupt are sufficient to getting a contract. the rest of the video still stands though.
(not an expert, someone correct me if i'm wrong abt that)
@MnM See, I had this instinct too, but then I went back to a strategy that helps me establish what the necessary condition is and what the sufficient condition is. If you take the contrapositive of that /Contract --> /Unlikely bankrupt, this is untrue. This means if you do not receive a contract, they do not believe that you are unlikely to go bankrupt. There could be many reasons why you do not receive a contract. If you take the contrapositive of what was shown in the video /Unlikely bankrupt --> /Contract, this makes much more sense - If they believe you are likely to become bankrupt, then you will not receive a contract. To be honest, though, it is confusing, as without this video, I would have probably done Unlikely bankrupt --> Contract.
I was between C and E, and ended up choosing E based on what makes the most sense. However upon watching the video it makes sense that they used Several in the text versus Most in the answer.
96 comments
yikes that's a lot of digesting to get through one question
If "only" is an indicator for a necessary condition under group 2, the set is Contracts. the Sub-set then will be unlikely bankrupt. if the managers thinks the companies won't go bankrupt (placing a dot in the subset), then it does automatically guarantee a contract because contracts is the necessary condition, the set, in which the smaller circle (the subset), unlikely bankrupt, resides in. Why then does it say "Does that mean that companies they don’t think will go bankrupt automatically get the contract? No, but managers thinking these companies are unlikely to go bankrupt is a necessary condition for them to be considered for a contract." ?
@Clayclaypaws okay jk I figured it out: the word "only" is logically modifying the type of company they hire, not the verb "contract," even though it sits right next to the verb.
In everyday English, the word "only" often floats in front of the verb instead of sitting exactly next to the thing it modifies. Think about the sentence, "I only eat pizza."
D is a sneaky answer. However, it's not well supported, it's just one possible hypothesis.
E is more strongly supported because despite the other small interior designs winning more awards (correlates to being superior), that doesn't change the fact that corporate managers give contracts to large companies.
Can I eliminate choice C on the basis that receiving an award does not necessarily mean that the designs are superior?
I got hung up on the fact that the small design companies were getting prestigious awards for corporate work. I didn't understand how they could be getting awarded for doing corporate work if they fail the necessary condition for getting a contract. I still don't get it.
@SavanahHoffstein yeah that is confusing. Maybe the small firms have won awards for their proposals or renders/mockups for corporate projects, but have never actually been awarded a contract, idk.
Gosh, when you spell it out like this and it seems so clear, and then I do a drill...
need this level but just like +1 hah...
Note to class: This problem contains a grammatical error with its "only" in the stimulus. In casual spoken English, we often put "only" before a verb out of habit, leaving context and vocal inflection to do all the work for the meaning. However, in writing, this creates bad literal meanings. "Only" being next to "contract" creates the question, why aren't you going to do anything else with them? Is that the only Verb?
Think of it like this:
Misplaced: "I only ate three slices of pizza."
Literal meaning: The only action you performed on the pizza was eating it (you didn't bake, smell, or buy it).
Corrected: "I ate only three slices of pizza." - Meaning you only ate 3 slices, not 4,5,6, etc.
In this problem, the necessary indicator is not next to what it indicates because it uses spoken language.
@Windrem2.0 I wonder if this is why I was confused. I posted my concern above. Would the first "only" belong after the word "contract" ? not before?
For D - ''at least some'' sounded fine to me but then it did say ''unaware'' and ''much better'' which is not supported by the stimulus.
This is the first time I saw a question and could answer it right away.!!!!!! This question type so far seems easy. \(*0*)/
For MSS questions, is it recommended that we evaluate each answer choice? I recognize that may be wasteful, but I am wondering about a scenario where multiple choices provide strength for support but vary in their intensity of strength. Is this a rare phenomenon or something that happens at all, I.e. a weakly supported answer and a strongly supported answer rather than one supported answer and other unsupported choices.
the show question feature is the best thing ever created. its so fun to try to get the answer correctly, untimed, and then watching the breakdown.
I'm having trouble distinguishing the "We don't know this / we can't assume this" answer choices with "How do you know?" with other answer choices. Anyone else?? How should I know which way to assume?
@jennawiese I'm just hoping as I move through all the modules, the LSAT way of thinking will start to be more clear. I am getting a lot of drill questions wrong on the 'trap' type of answer
I really wish that the stimulus, question stem, and answers were just displayed at the start of the lesson so I could try to break it down myself first, then go to the review. Even jumping through the video, the answer is marked and there's too many scribbles to concentrate :(
@JessM you can click on the show question button next to the comments button to show the full question and try to give it a go from there!
@ps939 OMG I missed that whole button! tysm this is a god send
Context: Baxe Interiors, one of the largest interior design companies in existence, currently has a near monopoly in the corporate market.
Concession: Several small design companies have won prestigious awards for their corporate work, while Baxe has won none.
Conclusion: Nonetheless, the corporate managers who solicit design proposals will only contract with companies they believe are unlikely to go bankrupt, and they believe that only very large companies are unlikely to go bankrupt.
The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
a. There are other very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe's. wrong.
b. Baxe does not have a near monopoly in the market of any category of interior design other than corporate interiors. Incorrect.
c. For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are superior to the designs produced by Baxe. Incorrect. Several and most aren't equal to each other.
d. At least some of the corporate managers who solicit design proposals are unaware that there are designs that are much better than those produced by Baxe. Incorrect.
e. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market. True.
Something I really struggle with is how to know when to make inferences. For example in answer choice C, the assumption was made that other small companies winning prestigious awards (and Baxe not) may insinuate that some of those small companies have designs superior to Baxe. This seems like a reasonable conclusion to make but that's the issue. I make assumptions like this all the time that I feel are reasonably justified and they trap me. How do I know when an inference is actually valid vs. trying to trap me?
@KateLevinson You are correct that it is reasonable to assume "some small companies have designs superior to Baxe" because "some" meaning "at least one" is easy to prove in this case. However, answer choice C says "for the most part" which implies that "most" small companies have better designs. We cannot make conclusions on "most" small companies because the stimulus only mentions "several." If you go back to the Foundations lessons, specifically Logic of Intersecting Sets Quantifier Inferences, there is a lesson about how all implies most and most implies some (All -> Most -> Some), but you cannot reverse the direction of the arrows (you cannot imply most from some).
@puddingeveryday I eliminated C as an option, but for a different reason. I thought that equating receiving awards for superior designs was assuming too much. There could be various reasons that they received awards while Baxe didn't. The awards could require you to apply for consideration and Baxe didn't do so, or the awards were specific to smaller companies, etc. etc.
Is this line of thinking incorrect and I just got lucky? Or is this just another angle to approach the questionn?
@JoshuaTWilkins I would not necessarily say that you “got lucky” because your line of reasoning is still correct (winning awards does not technically equal superior designs), but the bigger issue with answer choice C is that it some ≠ most. They are both assumptions that the author makes, but the first, (winning awards = superior designs) is a lot more reasonable of an assumption for the author to make than the second (some design awards = most of their designs are superior). For example if answer choice C said “At least ONE design produced by a small company is superior to the designs produced by Baxe” that would be reasonable because several design companies winning awards for their design work reasonably implies that at least one of their designs are superior, it does not imply that MOST are superior. (recall most means majority).
I honestly got this one right by POE. It was hard to understand at first.
I think this is an interesting passage because it's one of the few that doesn't contain an argument. It's a statement of a phenomenon and then a statement of a causal explanation of the phenomenon (in the conditional chain), but the conclusion is not explicitly stated.
If C had said "SOME designs produced by small companies..." instead of "most", could that have been correct?
My logic for answering this was that since baxe has a monopoly but hasn't won any awards, the other design companies do not threaten its nearly monopoly because they have shown they can preform better to some extent yet Baxe still obtains contracts.
Is the way I did this dangerous? I didn't map out the conditional logic, and a lot of times I don't. Now I worry that this may impact my success in the future.
This question forces you to make the assumption that because small design companies have won prestigious awards for their designs that they are superior to those of Baxe.
@JoeSolana4 yes. that's a feature of the MSS (most strongly supported) type of question. I think if it was a MBT (must be true), E would fail.
Isnt "only" a Group 2 Necessary condition indicator? Why is the contract being put in the sufficient condition?
@eaoneil yeah, I think the logic chain was backwards, and i think it was just because of how the information was processed. Being a large chain and being unlikely to go bankrupt are sufficient to getting a contract. the rest of the video still stands though.
(not an expert, someone correct me if i'm wrong abt that)
@eaoneil I noticed that too. It should have been:
Unlikely bankrupt -> Contract
Unlikely bankrupt -> Large companies
Therefore,
Unlikely bankrupt -> (large companies + contract)
@MnM See, I had this instinct too, but then I went back to a strategy that helps me establish what the necessary condition is and what the sufficient condition is. If you take the contrapositive of that /Contract --> /Unlikely bankrupt, this is untrue. This means if you do not receive a contract, they do not believe that you are unlikely to go bankrupt. There could be many reasons why you do not receive a contract. If you take the contrapositive of what was shown in the video /Unlikely bankrupt --> /Contract, this makes much more sense - If they believe you are likely to become bankrupt, then you will not receive a contract. To be honest, though, it is confusing, as without this video, I would have probably done Unlikely bankrupt --> Contract.
Isnt only a Group 2 Necessary condition indicator? Why is the contract being put in the sufficient condition?
@FranciscoLee I had the same question that really confused me
is there an easier explanation for D?
@Milem nvm i figured it out!
I was between C and E, and ended up choosing E based on what makes the most sense. However upon watching the video it makes sense that they used Several in the text versus Most in the answer.