Rule: If a person knowingly enters another's home without permission, then that person has committed trespass.
Application: Jimin wanted to surprise his new neighbor with a housewarming gift. He brought the gift, a kettle, to her house and left it on the kitchen counter. Even though Jimin had no nefarious motives and only wanted to welcome her to the community, he has committed trespass.
The author then states that : "As you can see, the "application" is incomplete. It's an argument but it's missing some facts or premises. We don't know if Jimin had permission from his neighbor or not. So the argument does not contain premises that “trigger” the sufficient conditions of the rule. It's our task to find the missing facts or premises which will "complete the application."
The passage then goes onto say that the correct answer might be:
"Knowing how intensely private his neighbor was, Jimin waited until she went to work to sneak into her house through the unlocked kitchen window."
However the above "correct" answer does not say clearly and explicitly if Jimin had permission or not. It might be that Jimin had permission to enter the neighbor's house whenever Jimin wanted but after having this permission Jimin waited until she left to sneak into the house. Of course "being intensely private" implies that the neighbor may not have given Jimin permission but that is an assumption and not necessarily true, is it? It is possible that the neighbor was intensely private and still held a special place in their heart for Jimin who the neighbor had given permission to enter (at will)?
It could be that the neighbor's privacy emerged from a desire to avoid attention and knowing the neighbor's low-key attitudes Jimin wanted to give them a gift in a subtle manner?
I can see what you're saying, but the rule "without permission" implies anything but permission. Yes, we don't know if the neighbor gave him permission or not but permission was never granted, the "without permission" has been satisfied.
How does it not complete the application? Am I making unnecessary assumptions?
Since we complete the application of a rule to an argument by inserting a fact that triggers the sufficient conditions of the rule meaning that the missing piece of the rules application is a premise that states the sufficient condition of the rule, can it be inferred that for most of PSA(a) questions the conclusion is the necessary condition of the rule and thats why we must find a fact/premise that states the sufficient condition of the rule being met in order to complete its application and make the arguments whole?
example:
the sufficient condition of the rule is "knowingly enters a persons home without their permission"
and we are told in the conclusion : they have committed trespass (which is the necessary condition of the rule)
we must now find a fact that bridges the conclusion to the rest of the argument by adding a premise that TRIGGERS the sufficient condition of the rule to complete its application to the situation stated in the argument.
I hope what I am saying in concise and not to abstract or convoluted. If anyone can confirm or deny this that would be much appreciated!
As this comment is 3 weeks old I would be curious to hear if you were able to get any clarification on this?
It sounds like you are on the right track with your thought process. That is essentially where my mind is as-well.
If you are able to provide any additional insights into this or any changes into how you see these questions after a few weeks that would be appreciated. :)
this is what I'm gleaming from the lesson, too, that the conclusion is a necessary condition and the answer choice you're looking for is like a missing sufficient condition.
i think there's a reason this question type is referred to as "pseudo" sufficient assumption, i think it requires us to make more assumptions than a regular sufficient assumption question would, but the task is a similar framework.
granted, i haven't gotten to sufficient assumption questions yet but this is my guess. would love to hear if you've reached clarity on your question!
@eliseaghoerghies451 Hii im seeing this over a year later, by any chance was anyone able to get any clarification on this? This is my thought process as well and I'm curious if anything has been confirmed or not so I know whether or not to change my perspective. Thank you!
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.
17 comments
bts' new tour dates were announced today, then i come across an example w jimin... is this a sign im getting tickets....??!!!!!!!!
Rule: If a person knowingly enters another's home without permission, then that person has committed trespass.
Application: Jimin wanted to surprise his new neighbor with a housewarming gift. He brought the gift, a kettle, to her house and left it on the kitchen counter. Even though Jimin had no nefarious motives and only wanted to welcome her to the community, he has committed trespass.
The author then states that : "As you can see, the "application" is incomplete. It's an argument but it's missing some facts or premises. We don't know if Jimin had permission from his neighbor or not. So the argument does not contain premises that “trigger” the sufficient conditions of the rule. It's our task to find the missing facts or premises which will "complete the application."
The passage then goes onto say that the correct answer might be:
"Knowing how intensely private his neighbor was, Jimin waited until she went to work to sneak into her house through the unlocked kitchen window."
However the above "correct" answer does not say clearly and explicitly if Jimin had permission or not. It might be that Jimin had permission to enter the neighbor's house whenever Jimin wanted but after having this permission Jimin waited until she left to sneak into the house. Of course "being intensely private" implies that the neighbor may not have given Jimin permission but that is an assumption and not necessarily true, is it? It is possible that the neighbor was intensely private and still held a special place in their heart for Jimin who the neighbor had given permission to enter (at will)?
It could be that the neighbor's privacy emerged from a desire to avoid attention and knowing the neighbor's low-key attitudes Jimin wanted to give them a gift in a subtle manner?
Good to know some future lawyers could be ARMYs
I can see what you're saying, but the rule "without permission" implies anything but permission. Yes, we don't know if the neighbor gave him permission or not but permission was never granted, the "without permission" has been satisfied.
How does it not complete the application? Am I making unnecessary assumptions?
Did a double take at seeing the name Jimin as a BTS fan plsss
I can't unsee this now...
@anandirani ahhh, I knew it was a foreign name
My ex was named Jimin, she needs to be arrested for trespassing into my life
Swear it'd be the reverse with Jimin
For this question type,
Since we complete the application of a rule to an argument by inserting a fact that triggers the sufficient conditions of the rule meaning that the missing piece of the rules application is a premise that states the sufficient condition of the rule, can it be inferred that for most of PSA(a) questions the conclusion is the necessary condition of the rule and thats why we must find a fact/premise that states the sufficient condition of the rule being met in order to complete its application and make the arguments whole?
example:
the sufficient condition of the rule is "knowingly enters a persons home without their permission"
and we are told in the conclusion : they have committed trespass (which is the necessary condition of the rule)
we must now find a fact that bridges the conclusion to the rest of the argument by adding a premise that TRIGGERS the sufficient condition of the rule to complete its application to the situation stated in the argument.
I hope what I am saying in concise and not to abstract or convoluted. If anyone can confirm or deny this that would be much appreciated!
#help #feedback
As this comment is 3 weeks old I would be curious to hear if you were able to get any clarification on this?
It sounds like you are on the right track with your thought process. That is essentially where my mind is as-well.
If you are able to provide any additional insights into this or any changes into how you see these questions after a few weeks that would be appreciated. :)
this is what I'm gleaming from the lesson, too, that the conclusion is a necessary condition and the answer choice you're looking for is like a missing sufficient condition.
i think there's a reason this question type is referred to as "pseudo" sufficient assumption, i think it requires us to make more assumptions than a regular sufficient assumption question would, but the task is a similar framework.
granted, i haven't gotten to sufficient assumption questions yet but this is my guess. would love to hear if you've reached clarity on your question!
@eliseaghoerghies451 Hii im seeing this over a year later, by any chance was anyone able to get any clarification on this? This is my thought process as well and I'm curious if anything has been confirmed or not so I know whether or not to change my perspective. Thank you!
@Jineen Yes, that's right, although sometimes you'll need to take the contrapositive of the given principle.
Principle: A --> B
Conclusion: B
Missing fact to trigger principle = A
Principle: A --> B
Conclusion: Not A
Missing fact to trigger principle = Not B
JUSTICE FOR JIMIN
seriously give the guy a BREAK
PARK JIMIN