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.
my issue with answer choice C, is that how are we sure that the person BELIEVES that it could bring them harm. Sure, playing the joke could bring harm, but does the person believe it could bring that harm?
I feel like this explanation is misguiding people to assume that you can never contrapose PSA(r or a) question types, or at least that's what it sounds like. B is just wrong because it is still using the CAN make a practical joke as the necessary condition and the not contempt and not harm as sufficient conditions, if they were reversed and it was both, it would satisfy the contrapositive of changing or to "and". Maybe I'm overthinking it but it felt like JY was saying you can never contrapose a rule, haha.
why would B be wrong? I thought you could negate both the sufficient and the necessary conditions and switch them to get the contrapositive, which is what I think B does. so wouldn't B be a logical conclusion?
These are the types of questions that make me wonder, 'would this be the line of logic and the type of arguments I would be making as a point in court?'
well, your honor, the legal application of the law here isn't pointing to whether or not she got hurt, but that he knew and "believed" that it would cause harm to her. That is what makes him guilty, not that she was simply scratched from the paper clip.
3
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.
74 comments
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
#feedback So when can you contrapose??
my issue with answer choice C, is that how are we sure that the person BELIEVES that it could bring them harm. Sure, playing the joke could bring harm, but does the person believe it could bring that harm?
would like to hear any clarifications on this
I feel like this explanation is misguiding people to assume that you can never contrapose PSA(r or a) question types, or at least that's what it sounds like. B is just wrong because it is still using the CAN make a practical joke as the necessary condition and the not contempt and not harm as sufficient conditions, if they were reversed and it was both, it would satisfy the contrapositive of changing or to "and". Maybe I'm overthinking it but it felt like JY was saying you can never contrapose a rule, haha.
Why not contrapose the rule?
If 1+2 -> 3
/3 -> /1 and /2
Thanks.
why would B be wrong? I thought you could negate both the sufficient and the necessary conditions and switch them to get the contrapositive, which is what I think B does. so wouldn't B be a logical conclusion?
These are the types of questions that make me wonder, 'would this be the line of logic and the type of arguments I would be making as a point in court?'
well, your honor, the legal application of the law here isn't pointing to whether or not she got hurt, but that he knew and "believed" that it would cause harm to her. That is what makes him guilty, not that she was simply scratched from the paper clip.