I'm intuitively able to come to the correct answer every time for these types of questions without having to create a conditional chain. Should I be mastering drawing out the chains regardless of my ability to use intuition to solve these MBT questions? I feel like I always take a long time to map out the chains, much longer than I will get per question on a real exam.
why are you assuming that you have to increase the habitat? what if experts put them in a controlled, enclosed space to help breed more panthers (250+), but it isn't their original habitat?
as someone that struggles with formal logic & struggles with finding the contrapositive on the spot and probably would've chose B as an answer, is a good way to also think about this type of question is by saying to myself that B is not a good answer because its not really inferring anything but rather just repeating whats explicitly stated.
Hmm ... what if we found a way to genetically modify panthers to adapt to a this current habitat? The stimulus does not necessarily demand that the current habitat be made larger, the stimulus leaves open other possibilities no matter how unlikely. Therefore, C would not qualify as MBT?
Just speculating - it is clear that C is incorrect via POE.
The frustrating part of the answer choice of "oldest mistake in the book" is that technically B is correct, if 250 or more than self-sustaining. BUT that doesn’t follow with what the ENTIRE stimulus says.
The stimulus says that current habitat is holding 70-100 and can't support more. 250 would mean self-sustaining, but the underlying implication is that all 250 must be in the same habitat, which we are directly told they can’t. 70-100 all on the same habitat isn’t enough, so if the total population reaches 250 but 70-100 are together in Florida and the remaining populations are in captivity in other places, then they’re not self-sustaining EVEN THOUGH there’s 250+. Therefore it’s impossible for the current population to reach the desired number if there isn’t more habitat.
This line of thinking has helped me a ton in understanding why mixing the sufficient and the necessary causes problems. It will present itself as a right answer because it technically is something the argument says, but it doesn’t FOLLOW the argument.
The reason I picked C and not B was because B states is claiming that if the population exceeds 250 it will automatically be self sustaining, but the stimulus says that the current habitat is not enough to support any more panthers than the 70-100 currently there. Therefore the panthers but no means can ever exceed 250 in that habitat because it cannot support more than 70 to 100. In addition the sufficiency necessity claims also come into play as even if an extra 150 panthers randomly popped up in the habitat they would die given that their is not enough resources to support them which is the opposite of self sustaining.
I understand that B is confusing sufficient and necessary, which is fundamentally why it is wrong, but I also eliminated it because the rule dictated in the stimulus states "[the Florida panther] population must reach at least 250 in order to be self sustaining" while answer B states, "If the population of Florida panthers ever exceeds 250, it will be self-sustaining". What made me detect this answer as wrong (before actually considering the sufficient-necessary inversion), is the difference between reaching at least 250 to be self-sustaining and exceeding 250 to be self sustaining.
Let's imagine that, for Answer B, the sufficient and necessary weren't inverted and that Answer B instead read as follows: "If the population of Florida panthers ever becomes self-sustaining, its population has exceeded 250".
In Lawgic, such an inverted (corrected) Answer B would be:
SS --> 250+
Since the stimulus mentions that the population must only be at least 250, not necessarily exceed 250, doesn't the stimulus Lawgic actually require "greater or equal to 250", not "more than 250" as JY indicated above? I understand the stimulus Lawgic should actually be:
SS --> 250≥
If this is the case, Answer B is not only wrong because the sufficient and necessary are confused, but also because self sustenance would require even just 250 panthers, not necessarily an excess of or more than 250 panthers.
With this in mind, I would notate (a corrected sufficient-necessary) Answer B as follows if I wanted to check its validity:
(FP = Florida panthers)
SS --> FP^250≥
------------
SS --> FP^250+
Not valid.
Any feedback, confirmation, or explanation as to why this is wrong, would be very appreciated!
I was able to POE down to B and C. I ended up choosing B (i see now why it's wrong, I'm just going to keep falling for that trick), but the reason I opted not to go for C, was because I over-thought it, I guess. I figured it's not really necessary for them to obtain a larger habitat, what if they just obtain an additional, or secondary habitat. Couldn't that yield the same result? As such, I saw C as strongly supported, but not necessarily MBT. Tricky...
So, I approached it a bit differently and I’m not sure if this is still valid. I wrote: If self-sustaining → 250+ → not current habitat.
I still arrived at the same conclusion, since negating "current habitat" is logically equivalent to "acquiring a larger habitat." "Acquiring a larger habitat" could mean expanding the existing one—making it different from its current state—or it could mean moving to a completely separate habitat that still meets the 250+ requirement. Does that interpretation also hold up or is this exam just making me lose my mind?
One thing that I noticed - and please correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that besides the fact that B is an example of "the oldest mistake in the book," meaning that it reverses the conditional relationship making it look like if 250+ population → SS, it also wrongfully uses "exceeds 250" since the stimulus clearly states that SS → at least 250 (meaning, a population of 250 or more). So even if this option was re-written to indicate the right conditional relationship, if it did not replace "exceeds 250" with "at least 250" or "250 or more" it would still be wrong because it would say "if the population of panthers is ever SS it exceeded 250" which can be translated to SS → 250+ - which is different from what the stimulus says (SS → at least 250)
I get lost just trying to translate this stuff into Lawgic without writing it down. We won't have a notes box or scrap paper for the test, right? I just don't see how I could possibly chain these conditionals together in my head in 90 seconds without a way to keep track of them visually...any advice?
JY derives a pretty good inference via the last sentence. However, I don't think we need the inference 250+→increase habitat. Think about what the last sentence is saying and consider all the preceding statements. we know that there are currently 70-100 panthers. In order to survive, their population must be at least 250. BUT, the last sentence says that their current habitat CANNOT support anymore of them. It cannot support 101 panthers. It canot support 200 panthers. It cannot support 250 panthers. This automatically triggers the contrapositive! so 250+→ss or in other words the population will not be self-sustaining (at least until the land can increase).
I've been geting the answers right, but I don't know if I am oversimplifying my methods and just getting lucky lol. Can anybody else relate lol? I'm scared I'm developing bad habits that will bite me in the a on the actual test huhu
11
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
98 comments
A---->B; B---->A = Mistaken Reversal
If coffee, I will feel energetic, if energetic I will have coffee. No dice. Mistaken Reversal.
I'm intuitively able to come to the correct answer every time for these types of questions without having to create a conditional chain. Should I be mastering drawing out the chains regardless of my ability to use intuition to solve these MBT questions? I feel like I always take a long time to map out the chains, much longer than I will get per question on a real exam.
soooooooo... this ISN'T about the hockey team?
why are you assuming that you have to increase the habitat? what if experts put them in a controlled, enclosed space to help breed more panthers (250+), but it isn't their original habitat?
as someone that struggles with formal logic & struggles with finding the contrapositive on the spot and probably would've chose B as an answer, is a good way to also think about this type of question is by saying to myself that B is not a good answer because its not really inferring anything but rather just repeating whats explicitly stated.
Saw the title of the lesson and thought we'd be talking about the hockey team lol
But ... I'm learning!
Had a lot of trouble with this one ... conditional logic is not my strong suit!
Hmm ... what if we found a way to genetically modify panthers to adapt to a this current habitat? The stimulus does not necessarily demand that the current habitat be made larger, the stimulus leaves open other possibilities no matter how unlikely. Therefore, C would not qualify as MBT?
Just speculating - it is clear that C is incorrect via POE.
The frustrating part of the answer choice of "oldest mistake in the book" is that technically B is correct, if 250 or more than self-sustaining. BUT that doesn’t follow with what the ENTIRE stimulus says.
The stimulus says that current habitat is holding 70-100 and can't support more. 250 would mean self-sustaining, but the underlying implication is that all 250 must be in the same habitat, which we are directly told they can’t. 70-100 all on the same habitat isn’t enough, so if the total population reaches 250 but 70-100 are together in Florida and the remaining populations are in captivity in other places, then they’re not self-sustaining EVEN THOUGH there’s 250+. Therefore it’s impossible for the current population to reach the desired number if there isn’t more habitat.
This line of thinking has helped me a ton in understanding why mixing the sufficient and the necessary causes problems. It will present itself as a right answer because it technically is something the argument says, but it doesn’t FOLLOW the argument.
The reason I picked C and not B was because B states is claiming that if the population exceeds 250 it will automatically be self sustaining, but the stimulus says that the current habitat is not enough to support any more panthers than the 70-100 currently there. Therefore the panthers but no means can ever exceed 250 in that habitat because it cannot support more than 70 to 100. In addition the sufficiency necessity claims also come into play as even if an extra 150 panthers randomly popped up in the habitat they would die given that their is not enough resources to support them which is the opposite of self sustaining.
#feedback
I understand that B is confusing sufficient and necessary, which is fundamentally why it is wrong, but I also eliminated it because the rule dictated in the stimulus states "[the Florida panther] population must reach at least 250 in order to be self sustaining" while answer B states, "If the population of Florida panthers ever exceeds 250, it will be self-sustaining". What made me detect this answer as wrong (before actually considering the sufficient-necessary inversion), is the difference between reaching at least 250 to be self-sustaining and exceeding 250 to be self sustaining.
Let's imagine that, for Answer B, the sufficient and necessary weren't inverted and that Answer B instead read as follows: "If the population of Florida panthers ever becomes self-sustaining, its population has exceeded 250".
In Lawgic, such an inverted (corrected) Answer B would be:
SS --> 250+
Since the stimulus mentions that the population must only be at least 250, not necessarily exceed 250, doesn't the stimulus Lawgic actually require "greater or equal to 250", not "more than 250" as JY indicated above? I understand the stimulus Lawgic should actually be:
SS --> 250≥
If this is the case, Answer B is not only wrong because the sufficient and necessary are confused, but also because self sustenance would require even just 250 panthers, not necessarily an excess of or more than 250 panthers.
With this in mind, I would notate (a corrected sufficient-necessary) Answer B as follows if I wanted to check its validity:
(FP = Florida panthers)
SS --> FP^250≥
------------
SS --> FP^250+
Not valid.
Any feedback, confirmation, or explanation as to why this is wrong, would be very appreciated!
go cats go
I was able to POE down to B and C. I ended up choosing B (i see now why it's wrong, I'm just going to keep falling for that trick), but the reason I opted not to go for C, was because I over-thought it, I guess. I figured it's not really necessary for them to obtain a larger habitat, what if they just obtain an additional, or secondary habitat. Couldn't that yield the same result? As such, I saw C as strongly supported, but not necessarily MBT. Tricky...
So, I approached it a bit differently and I’m not sure if this is still valid. I wrote: If self-sustaining → 250+ → not current habitat.
I still arrived at the same conclusion, since negating "current habitat" is logically equivalent to "acquiring a larger habitat." "Acquiring a larger habitat" could mean expanding the existing one—making it different from its current state—or it could mean moving to a completely separate habitat that still meets the 250+ requirement. Does that interpretation also hold up or is this exam just making me lose my mind?
The age old question:
What are people down in Florida doing?
One thing that I noticed - and please correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that besides the fact that B is an example of "the oldest mistake in the book," meaning that it reverses the conditional relationship making it look like if 250+ population → SS, it also wrongfully uses "exceeds 250" since the stimulus clearly states that SS → at least 250 (meaning, a population of 250 or more). So even if this option was re-written to indicate the right conditional relationship, if it did not replace "exceeds 250" with "at least 250" or "250 or more" it would still be wrong because it would say "if the population of panthers is ever SS it exceeded 250" which can be translated to SS → 250+ - which is different from what the stimulus says (SS → at least 250)
B is super tricky
I get lost just trying to translate this stuff into Lawgic without writing it down. We won't have a notes box or scrap paper for the test, right? I just don't see how I could possibly chain these conditionals together in my head in 90 seconds without a way to keep track of them visually...any advice?
#feedback I wish you guys wouldn't block off the answer choices so we can at least try on our own and then work together.
OH MY GOD FINALLY!
proud of myself for figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions without error. It took this many lessons but it's doable.
all of us are gonna make it!
JY derives a pretty good inference via the last sentence. However, I don't think we need the inference 250+→increase habitat. Think about what the last sentence is saying and consider all the preceding statements. we know that there are currently 70-100 panthers. In order to survive, their population must be at least 250. BUT, the last sentence says that their current habitat CANNOT support anymore of them. It cannot support 101 panthers. It canot support 200 panthers. It cannot support 250 panthers. This automatically triggers the contrapositive! so
250+→ssor in other words the population will not be self-sustaining (at least until the land can increase).I would love for him to go over the answers in order from A to E. Feels like it makes the most sense that way. #feedback
I've been geting the answers right, but I don't know if I am oversimplifying my methods and just getting lucky lol. Can anybody else relate lol? I'm scared I'm developing bad habits that will bite me in the a on the actual test huhu