I'm confused by this part of the explanation: "So, the second statement functions to confirm the conditional relationship established in the first statement and it rules out taking care of the environment as a necessary condition of overall success." How is taking care of the environment a necessary condition? I had it on the sufficient side.
@IsabellaP It "rules it out," therefore it is not a necessary condition. It's basically just extra information to disguise the true answer.
Sort of like if it had said something silly like "the current leader of the administration is bald, but even a bald adminstrator can be successful if he protects individual liberties." From that statement, you gain new information, but also have it almost immediately reduced to not really mattering.
But if you misread the stimulus, you might think that the bald administrator couldn't be successful, or that only a bald administrator could be successful. This is how you might fall into a trap answer.
While it may not true for all answer choices, this is how I approached this question based on its stimulus.
Considering the two rules for overall success: Economicsuccess & individual protection.
I knew that the correct answer choice was going to begin with an if-then clause, based on economic success, because one portion of the conjunction was covered (individual protection).
On harder questions the writers may do away with the basic "If-then" formula, but seeking the other rule is still relevant.
i got it right, but in my notes i wrote that it's ok to not be economically successful; as long as you protect liberties, you're successful. so i feel like the answer i chose (c) was the strongest but has nothing to do with guaranteeing overall success, as the present administration protected individual liberties anyways?
A question about the general definition of "may" on the LSAT: does it always mean "probable", and so anytime that it is used in a conditional, it renders it invalid? When I read the stimulus, I took it to mean as "allowed" e.g. "you may go".
106 comments
OMG, I got it correct! There's hope!!
damn
First question i've done correctly under the time limit!!
I'm confused by this part of the explanation: "So, the second statement functions to confirm the conditional relationship established in the first statement and it rules out taking care of the environment as a necessary condition of overall success." How is taking care of the environment a necessary condition? I had it on the sufficient side.
@IsabellaP It "rules it out," therefore it is not a necessary condition. It's basically just extra information to disguise the true answer.
Sort of like if it had said something silly like "the current leader of the administration is bald, but even a bald adminstrator can be successful if he protects individual liberties." From that statement, you gain new information, but also have it almost immediately reduced to not really mattering.
But if you misread the stimulus, you might think that the bald administrator couldn't be successful, or that only a bald administrator could be successful. This is how you might fall into a trap answer.
Since there are so many indicator words, it is helpful to note that "even" does not have a logical implication. It is just an emphasis.
One second under, didn’t second guess myself
Nuts, ~2:30 over, but I got it down. Just gotta hone these skills before working on time
Easy let’s go, one for one
While it may not true for all answer choices, this is how I approached this question based on its stimulus.
Considering the two rules for overall success: Economic success & individual protection.
I knew that the correct answer choice was going to begin with an if-then clause, based on economic success, because one portion of the conjunction was covered (individual protection).
On harder questions the writers may do away with the basic "If-then" formula, but seeking the other rule is still relevant.
ugh I second guessed myself. it was between b and c and I chose b both times not listening to my gut
Yes!!!
I can't believe I fell for that. Got it in BR. 🤦♀️
yaya got it right! :)
dang it! I fell for A lol
Welp, I fell for the trap. I went into hunt mode and saw A and clicked submit. Should have looked at the other answers as well.
Massive L but we bounce back
YESSIR on a streak rn! 39 sec!
took me twice the time but i got it right
Got it right upon BR
41 seconds baby!! :)
It’s hard to rely on visual concepts because it takes more time to write it down. I hope I can get faster at this by just picturing it in my head
It took me 8 minutes to get this into lawgic and then i got it right. So I still have some ways to go
@GloriaOnwugamba It took me 8 mins as well. LOL. I got it right too.
i was confused between A and C. Got it right in BR. My god, i am struggling.
You’ve got this! We all do
Conditional logic is the bane of my existence. I’m so bad at it.
i got it right, but in my notes i wrote that it's ok to not be economically successful; as long as you protect liberties, you're successful. so i feel like the answer i chose (c) was the strongest but has nothing to do with guaranteeing overall success, as the present administration protected individual liberties anyways?
A question about the general definition of "may" on the LSAT: does it always mean "probable", and so anytime that it is used in a conditional, it renders it invalid? When I read the stimulus, I took it to mean as "allowed" e.g. "you may go".