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 :)
Isn't Hagerle capable of apologizing sincerely to the counselor since they did it to the physician? or is that too big of an assumption? If you have demonstrated that you can sincerely apologize to one person, you are most certainly capable of doing it to another. On the other hand, I can see that maybe Hagerle doesn't genuinely feel sorry towards the counselor but does feel sorry towards the physician... which would make his apology towards the counselor insincere. I think I get it.
Ughhhhhhh. lol. dang. I really thought that D was the bridge. I understand why C is the better bridge now but to me it felt like C was too constricting when I read it.
For some of us this is easy, and for others it s a little bit harder keep on studying, we are all in this together. Focus and keep on going if we study hard enough all of this will become easier.
picked C initially then talked myself into E in BR. i'm really struggling with why E doesn't work.
it seems to me that the rule laid out in E fits the counselor's argument really well – what am i i missing? i get that the conditional logic when laid out doesn't agree but intuitively it's not making any sense to me. any help is appreciated 🙏🏼
To me, E says that Hagerle should not have apologized to the physician. But the argument that's being made is that Hagerle should apologize to the counselor because they apologized to the physician.
More intuitively, I read that answer choice and think "I don't know if Hagerle can apologize to everyone", so that makes the scope too wide for what we're looking for.
I think its making it so difficult to answer these questions is because I've wired my brain to make difficult assumptions and sometimes the most obvious answer choices in other LR questions are the wrong answers. But for this kind of question, simply underlining the 'rules' and looking for the answer that follows those rules makes sense even if it does seem obvious.
heads up - seems obvious - but some of these questions are really quick to grasp for some people but others struggle a little more so please don't feel discouraged in the comments of these lessons if you find it challenging. There is nothing you can't learn, if it hard today it will be easier tomorrow!
I kinda agree with them on how misleading the 2/5 rating for this is. The answer choice is so compacted with grammar that I got lost on the framework of the argument. I would give it 3/5--I got it right but def took time
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
61 comments
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"
Studying on Superbowl Sunday, God gives His toughest battles to His strongest soldiers.
lol, the Eagles were definitely not God's strongest soldiers then
#PSAr
Isn't Hagerle capable of apologizing sincerely to the counselor since they did it to the physician? or is that too big of an assumption? If you have demonstrated that you can sincerely apologize to one person, you are most certainly capable of doing it to another. On the other hand, I can see that maybe Hagerle doesn't genuinely feel sorry towards the counselor but does feel sorry towards the physician... which would make his apology towards the counselor insincere. I think I get it.
Ughhhhhhh. lol. dang. I really thought that D was the bridge. I understand why C is the better bridge now but to me it felt like C was too constricting when I read it.
For some of us this is easy, and for others it s a little bit harder keep on studying, we are all in this together. Focus and keep on going if we study hard enough all of this will become easier.
picked C initially then talked myself into E in BR. i'm really struggling with why E doesn't work.
it seems to me that the rule laid out in E fits the counselor's argument really well – what am i i missing? i get that the conditional logic when laid out doesn't agree but intuitively it's not making any sense to me. any help is appreciated 🙏🏼
To me, E says that Hagerle should not have apologized to the physician. But the argument that's being made is that Hagerle should apologize to the counselor because they apologized to the physician.
More intuitively, I read that answer choice and think "I don't know if Hagerle can apologize to everyone", so that makes the scope too wide for what we're looking for.
Hope this helps!
The conditional statement in E is shown as follows in Lawgic:
Should apologize for telling a lie --> can apologize to all who were told lie
The goal of the question is to find a rule that RESULTS in an apology being REQUIRED.
E gives a conditional rule that tells us what is required for an apology to take place. ("should apologize" in sufficient condition).
We want an answer that has "should apologize" in the NECESSARY condition. As provided by C.
Hope this helps
I think I love this section. If this was the entire LSAT, I would be going to Harvard BUT bc it's not we're sticking with a T4
Is it fair to assume that if AC C wasn't available AC B would be the best option, because its asking which one MOST helps justify?
I think its making it so difficult to answer these questions is because I've wired my brain to make difficult assumptions and sometimes the most obvious answer choices in other LR questions are the wrong answers. But for this kind of question, simply underlining the 'rules' and looking for the answer that follows those rules makes sense even if it does seem obvious.
heads up - seems obvious - but some of these questions are really quick to grasp for some people but others struggle a little more so please don't feel discouraged in the comments of these lessons if you find it challenging. There is nothing you can't learn, if it hard today it will be easier tomorrow!
Love you for this.
HOW IS THIS ONLY A 2/5.
For real. Maybe I'm just bad at this question type, but I thought it was way harder than some of the 5/5s I've seen so far.
Agreed this question was brutal.
lol Im sorry but this is def a 2/5 difficulty. The answer choice literally outlines exactly what happened in the stim.
I kinda agree with them on how misleading the 2/5 rating for this is. The answer choice is so compacted with grammar that I got lost on the framework of the argument. I would give it 3/5--I got it right but def took time