C.) Someone is owed a sincere apology for having been lied to by a person if someone else has already received a sincere apology for the same lie from that same person.
How I always read these statements is by starting with IF
so... if someone else has already recieved apology, same lie, same person -> then owed sincere apology for having been lied to.
This matched up to what the counselor was saying. LSAT really tries to trick you with their weird ahhh sentences.
These questions are tough for me but I feel like I'm getting it. I got it right both times.
B) It's giving it's all or nothing. Not really what the stimulus is saying. It's more because she got one then I should too, SHOULD.
D) It's not that they have the capability to apologize sincerely, it's the fact that they have been lied to and weren't given an apology unlike the other person.
A) Worse than D, sure it's good to but are they owed the apology with this answer?
E) It's not being able to apologize sincerely but that you are owed an apology on the premise of why the apology came up in the first place.
I think I'm understand in that the answer bit should match the stimulus bits.
I picked A because I thought of the moral rule, but rereading it in BR, it's asking about the counselor's reasoning. That's where I realized I made my mistake.
I would previously be slower at reading these type of stimuli if I don't understand a word or would get stuck on some pronunciation. In this question, I ended up just changing Hagerle to H as soon as the narrator (me) in my head was saying it. I got through it so much quicker this way than if I didn't use this trick :)
@catintheLSAT I also use my cursor to follow the word I am reading. Sometimes I realize I am reading the stimulus but not actually ingesting what is in the stimulus. This would help breaking/simplifying the stimulus to follow the chain.
Someone is owed a sincere apology for having been lied to by a person if someone else has already received a sincere apology for the same lie from that same person.
This is such ridiculous sentence lol. brutal to read when in a time crunch
@renmiyano I had the same question. I think we are assuming that just because the physician received an apology that she was owed an apology. To diagram:
same lie 2 diff -> (/both owed -> neither owed)
[we cannot replace the arrow with AND in the necessary condition, we take one claim out of the conjunctive and move to to sufficient like so:]
same lie 2 diff AND /both owed -> neither owed)
[contrapose: flip, negate, & turn the AND to an OR]
/neither owed --> /same lie 2 diff OR both owed
[for my simplification, /neither owed = someone owed]
someone owed --> /same lie 2 diff OR both owed
Is the sufficient condition triggered? Instinctually, I assumed because the physician received a sincere apology that they were owed one, but that is not explicitly stated. If the sufficient isn't fulfilled, then we can't guarantee the necessary condition that both are owed a sincere apology based off the facts given by the stimulus.
I think that's accurate. Please someone confirm or deny. Happy studying.
@jcilla Yes! Sometimes the principle is a broader application of a rule but it's totally fine for it to just be a restatement, as if that statement is valid then the argument itself is valid.
i'm not understanding why E is wrong. I diagrammed it the same as in the video, but if we take the contrapositive of that, doesn't it match the missing bridge? #help
@mkittrell The conclusion is "Hagerle owes a sincere apology". E is wrong because E does not state any rule with respect to "owing" an apology to someone.
C logic:
X (someone else) received a sincere apology -> Y (someone) is owed a sincere apology.
E Logic:
should apologize to Y (someone) -> can apologize to all others.
In case of C, sufficient condition is triggered in the stimulus which then justifies the conclusion.
I picked C and its pretty clear why its correct. I think what's confusing about B is that it would work if we assume that the fact that you received an apology means that you are owed one. Because saying "neither person is owed an apology unless both are" is equivalent to saying that if "one person is owed an apology, then both are". So if the physician is owed an apology, then so is the counselor.
@SuperSyFy The thing is, the stim says "Hagerle owes me a sincere apology as well," which really sounds like its saying that the physician was owed that apology. And if she was owed it, then (like you say) one person is owed an apology, so both are.
C being correct over B depends on reading the stim in a way where it doesn't claim that the physician was owed an apology. I'm interested in what other people think though.
E is focusing on the sincerity of the apology which is not relevant information. Since sincere apologies are the only kind we are talking about, it can be kicked into domain. The rule is about apologies and when they must be given, not their sincerity. Good luck moving forward :)
72 comments
this should be a level 5
It def took me lots of re-reading but I picked C.
C.) Someone is owed a sincere apology for having been lied to by a person if someone else has already received a sincere apology for the same lie from that same person.
How I always read these statements is by starting with IF
so... if someone else has already recieved apology, same lie, same person -> then owed sincere apology for having been lied to.
This matched up to what the counselor was saying. LSAT really tries to trick you with their weird ahhh sentences.
im taking extra time to figure them out, but its paying off. This one was tricky since the wording likes to be screwy
These questions are tough for me but I feel like I'm getting it. I got it right both times.
B) It's giving it's all or nothing. Not really what the stimulus is saying. It's more because she got one then I should too, SHOULD.
D) It's not that they have the capability to apologize sincerely, it's the fact that they have been lied to and weren't given an apology unlike the other person.
A) Worse than D, sure it's good to but are they owed the apology with this answer?
E) It's not being able to apologize sincerely but that you are owed an apology on the premise of why the apology came up in the first place.
I think I'm understand in that the answer bit should match the stimulus bits.
I picked A because I thought of the moral rule, but rereading it in BR, it's asking about the counselor's reasoning. That's where I realized I made my mistake.
i got it right on BR but i didnt think it was C since it was so straightforward
I would previously be slower at reading these type of stimuli if I don't understand a word or would get stuck on some pronunciation. In this question, I ended up just changing Hagerle to H as soon as the narrator (me) in my head was saying it. I got through it so much quicker this way than if I didn't use this trick :)
Hope this helps someone too!
@catintheLSAT I also use my cursor to follow the word I am reading. Sometimes I realize I am reading the stimulus but not actually ingesting what is in the stimulus. This would help breaking/simplifying the stimulus to follow the chain.
@lawshosh Another thing I like to do is highlight subset words or conditional logic indicators if that helps anyone
Took a 50 second detour on the assumption train to B before I realized nobody said the guy who got an apology was owed one.
i overthinked on this one
Someone is owed a sincere apology for having been lied to by a person if someone else has already received a sincere apology for the same lie from that same person.
This is such ridiculous sentence lol. brutal to read when in a time crunch
Well under the time. Yay!
this one was confusing for me, I answered E initially but in the BR I got it right with C.
I love these!
the bridge description really helps POE go a bit faster. Thanks for the tip J.Y.
Can somebody map out the Lawgic for answer choice B, as well its contrapositive? For some reason I can't seem to figure out the right form.
same lie 2 diff -> (\both owed -> neither owed)
Now how can I contrapose this?
\(\both owed -> neither owed) -> same lie 2 diff
For one, how can I take the contrapositive of a grouped/embedded conditional?
Two, are there any lessons on sufficient embedded conditionals? Can I replace the arrow in the embedded sufficient condition with an "AND"?
@renmiyano I had the same question. I think we are assuming that just because the physician received an apology that she was owed an apology. To diagram:
same lie 2 diff -> (/both owed -> neither owed)
[we cannot replace the arrow with AND in the necessary condition, we take one claim out of the conjunctive and move to to sufficient like so:]
same lie 2 diff AND /both owed -> neither owed)
[contrapose: flip, negate, & turn the AND to an OR]
/neither owed --> /same lie 2 diff OR both owed
[for my simplification, /neither owed = someone owed]
someone owed --> /same lie 2 diff OR both owed
Is the sufficient condition triggered? Instinctually, I assumed because the physician received a sincere apology that they were owed one, but that is not explicitly stated. If the sufficient isn't fulfilled, then we can't guarantee the necessary condition that both are owed a sincere apology based off the facts given by the stimulus.
I think that's accurate. Please someone confirm or deny. Happy studying.
I have noticed that it seems like a paraphrase of restatement of the stimulus, is there any validity to this?
@jcilla Yes! Sometimes the principle is a broader application of a rule but it's totally fine for it to just be a restatement, as if that statement is valid then the argument itself is valid.
Maybe not the most difficult to get right, but the dense language is definitely a time sink
C was written by a potato trying to finish a 1,000 word count essay.
dub city I answered in 1:16
dub city.... answered in 1:16
i'm not understanding why E is wrong. I diagrammed it the same as in the video, but if we take the contrapositive of that, doesn't it match the missing bridge? #help
@ClaudiaW Same! I wonder why you can't take the contrapositive of E here like in other question types.
@mkittrell The conclusion is "Hagerle owes a sincere apology". E is wrong because E does not state any rule with respect to "owing" an apology to someone.
C logic:
X (someone else) received a sincere apology -> Y (someone) is owed a sincere apology.
E Logic:
should apologize to Y (someone) -> can apologize to all others.
In case of C, sufficient condition is triggered in the stimulus which then justifies the conclusion.
E just doesn't make sense as per the stimulus.
I'm getting these right but it takes me like 2 minutes to like understand
and that's actually good :)
I picked C and its pretty clear why its correct. I think what's confusing about B is that it would work if we assume that the fact that you received an apology means that you are owed one. Because saying "neither person is owed an apology unless both are" is equivalent to saying that if "one person is owed an apology, then both are". So if the physician is owed an apology, then so is the counselor.
@SuperSyFy The thing is, the stim says "Hagerle owes me a sincere apology as well," which really sounds like its saying that the physician was owed that apology. And if she was owed it, then (like you say) one person is owed an apology, so both are.
C being correct over B depends on reading the stim in a way where it doesn't claim that the physician was owed an apology. I'm interested in what other people think though.
I chose c intially but in blind review I thought it but be E...idk they sound similar
E is focusing on the sincerity of the apology which is not relevant information. Since sincere apologies are the only kind we are talking about, it can be kicked into domain. The rule is about apologies and when they must be given, not their sincerity. Good luck moving forward :)
I need to work on reading the answer choices more thoroughly... Definitely thought C said just "someone" not "someone else"