shows contempt or believes harm --> /play practical joke
basically if shows c or believes h than do not play practical joke
contrapositive =
if play practical joke --> /show contempt and /believe harm
basically if you play practical joke then we know it does not show contempt and one does not believe harm.
AC B. is wrong because the original argument and the contrapositive DOES NOT assert when it would be wrong for one to play a joke. We just know what makes one not be able to play a practical joke and if one does do it what it should not have. AC. B. states it would not be wrong for me to play it but we do not know when it would be wrong.
woah this one was kind of hard. but once i went back and realized it said "to that person" and not "to anyone/someone" all the other answer choices fell apart.
Although I got it right, I'm curious when do we know a conclusion is unreachable? If it because this is an "or" statement? Why doesn't the contrapositive work in this circumstance?
Or you can apply the Jackass Negation: One should always play a practical joke on someone, especially if it shows contempt and/or could bring significant harm to that person. ;)
For B to be correct it would have to have the following structure: Since it would not be wrong for me to play the practical joke, it must be that the joke would show no contempt for the person it is played on and that I have no reason to think it would bring significant harm to anyone.
I don't understand how you couldn't take the contrapositive to make answer choice B work. Contempt -/-> PJ and believing harm -/-> PJ...therefore it makes sense to work backwards as well, with the opposite being true. Could someone explain?
I was unsure between B and C because I fell for the contrapositive trap in B. B) says that the joke isn't believed to cause harm and would not show contempt for the target. That means that the rule we are given, which requires that one of these two sufficient conditions be met, is not triggered. In other words, B) does not lead to the conclusion that the joke should not be played. But does that mean that the joke should be played? No. Aren't there other reasons why it might be wrong to play a joke? We are given 2 conditions (harm and contempt) but there could be others. That's why the conclusion in B), that it would not be wrong to play the joke, is not a reachable conclusion from the rule we're given.
Reasoning on why B is incorrect is somewhat questionable because why are we putting = between wouldn't be wrong and would be right? Because wouldn't be wrong also could mean neutral. A gray area exists.
Why is it not D? Did not understand from the explanation/video. Is it because it says anyone/someone instead of being specific about the target of the joke?
If I see a question similar to this one on the test, I believe it would be a valid response for me to run the fade with the first person that I see immediately upon viewing that question. Let me know the general consensus.
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.
84 comments
Can you not do contrapositive with De Morgan's Law?
Arguement =
shows contempt or believes harm --> /play practical joke
basically if shows c or believes h than do not play practical joke
contrapositive =
if play practical joke --> /show contempt and /believe harm
basically if you play practical joke then we know it does not show contempt and one does not believe harm.
AC B. is wrong because the original argument and the contrapositive DOES NOT assert when it would be wrong for one to play a joke. We just know what makes one not be able to play a practical joke and if one does do it what it should not have. AC. B. states it would not be wrong for me to play it but we do not know when it would be wrong.
can you not create a contrapositive?
I get why C is the "most" correct but why would it be enough if it only covers one condition? and not the other -showing contempt- condition
woah this one was kind of hard. but once i went back and realized it said "to that person" and not "to anyone/someone" all the other answer choices fell apart.
Although I got it right, I'm curious when do we know a conclusion is unreachable? If it because this is an "or" statement? Why doesn't the contrapositive work in this circumstance?
Is there an earlier lesson that talks about prescription-to-judgment inferences?
we got em with this one ah question
Or you can apply the Jackass Negation: One should always play a practical joke on someone, especially if it shows contempt and/or could bring significant harm to that person. ;)
For B to be correct it would have to have the following structure: Since it would not be wrong for me to play the practical joke, it must be that the joke would show no contempt for the person it is played on and that I have no reason to think it would bring significant harm to anyone.
please stop hiding parts of the answer choices, i get you are trying to help but its messing with my brain.
We need a grammar lesson with this term "Prescriptive Conclusion" he keeps using in alot of videos. That would really help us.
I don't understand how you couldn't take the contrapositive to make answer choice B work. Contempt -/-> PJ and believing harm -/-> PJ...therefore it makes sense to work backwards as well, with the opposite being true. Could someone explain?
what exactly does prescriptive language mean?
I was unsure between B and C because I fell for the contrapositive trap in B. B) says that the joke isn't believed to cause harm and would not show contempt for the target. That means that the rule we are given, which requires that one of these two sufficient conditions be met, is not triggered. In other words, B) does not lead to the conclusion that the joke should not be played. But does that mean that the joke should be played? No. Aren't there other reasons why it might be wrong to play a joke? We are given 2 conditions (harm and contempt) but there could be others. That's why the conclusion in B), that it would not be wrong to play the joke, is not a reachable conclusion from the rule we're given.
isn't B a contrapositive of the Rule in the question?
Little key I made for myself:
PSA (LR Q#8) All Types: Prescriptive vs. Morally Descriptive Language
When/ When not to conflate the two is very tricky!
Often, wrong answer choices will use morally descriptive language in place of prescriptive
Seems correct, but is actually a trap answer
When to translate prescriptive to morally descriptive:
When stimulus makes prescriptions based on moral judgements
Ex. Do not prank disabled individuals
Here, answers that are morally descriptive could be correct
When NOT to translate prescriptive to morally descriptive:
When stimulus has nothing to do with morality at all
Ex. Do not forget to brush your teeth
Here, answers that are morally descriptive COULD NOT be correct
Brushing/not brushing arouses no moral judgements
Reasoning on why B is incorrect is somewhat questionable because why are we putting = between wouldn't be wrong and would be right? Because wouldn't be wrong also could mean neutral. A gray area exists.
the bait from A is crazy
Me when I’m literally saying the same shit over and over again
#feedback. I'm confused about why you can't contrapose here.
Is this not correct?
could play a practical joke → /contempt and /b(significant harm)
C says contempt for anyone, how is it right b/c it isnt saying that particular person...??
Why is it not D? Did not understand from the explanation/video. Is it because it says anyone/someone instead of being specific about the target of the joke?
If I see a similar question to this on the exam, I'll crash out, cry, and skip it because ain't nobody got time for that.
If I see a question similar to this one on the test, I believe it would be a valid response for me to run the fade with the first person that I see immediately upon viewing that question. Let me know the general consensus.
this question genuinely made my head hurt