Ok, I got this one right, basically off my intuition.
But can someone explain why we can just automatically throw out answer choices with "only if" or other necessary condition indicators?
Like, what if it was established that Ms. Sandstrom had known pointing out the anomaly would cause people to flock to the farm prior to writing her column?
@JohnThorn The stimulus says: Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels' farm.
Just based on the conditional we can say: Expected damage then Pay.
The B says: One should pay for damage that one's action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action would lead other people to cause that damage.
This translates, because of the only if, into: Pay then Expected Damage.
If you already know that the main relation is E then P, whenever an answer changes that (P then E) it will be wrong.
@JessM In the stimulus (conclusion), "should pay for this damage" is on the right side of the arrow since it is before the sufficient indicator "if". Answer choice (A) has "pay for any damage" also on the right side of the arrow because it is before the sufficient indicator "if". Whereas (B) has the necessary indicator "only if". Whatever is before "only if" is on the left side of the arrow. It is basically the wrong reversal of the conclusion. Hopefully that makes sense! I would recommend watching the foundational videos on sufficient vs necessary assumption indicators and conditional reasoning.
In general, is it safe to assume that when the conclusion in the stimulus has to do with something that someone "should" do, the right answer will also address that "should"?
For this question I didn't really look at C, D, or E because it didn't seem like they addressed the should claim so then I just looked at A and B because of the should piece, but I won't do that going forward if that's not a safe assumption.
If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm
The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay for the damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors conditional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm. Making the conclusion airtight.
This is a great way to visualize it. The only reason I got this right is because in the content leading up to this it was explained that what differentiates SA from MBT is that we aren't looking for the conclusion, we are looking for the missing link that would guarantee that the conclusion (in this case 'Ms. sandstrom should pay') is a MBT conclusion. The key factor for me is that in these question types we're looking for the missing premise.
i will say the readings before this comparing MBT to SA certainly made this confusing. I pegged A as being "correct" but not what the question was asking.
the prior lessons before this really tripped me up. I thought it was A but after reading through the SA lessons I doubted myself. I think the lessons could've been explained better
Isnt A just a restatement of the conclusion. Only reason wht I didnt pick it. The question asks what is to be inferred, so i assumed we are looking for something that the author assumes about Mr. Sandstrom
If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm
The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay fro damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors cndtional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure that if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm.
I have found many of these questions to be much easier when you don’t read some of these incredibly confusing explanations in the lessons prior to the question. The lessons truly just make you doubt yourself and make you over think many of the questions. Additionally, I only read the explanation as to which answer is correct and why it is correct so that way I only take away what I’m supposed to be looking for in each question. There is no reason a 14 minute video is necessary to explain why an answer is correct. Less is more
I immediately eliminated B when I saw only if. I was between A and C and the reason I went A is for the reasons explained by the tutor. For C, I abandoned it because it is talking about Sandstrom knowing about the consequences which is different from the premise. The premise is simply stating that she could have reasonably expected, which is essentially implying that she didn't "know". Therefore, if we were to go with that answer and do a negation, the argument would still work. She "didn't know". Doesn't matter, the argument isn't relying on her knowing or not, it is expecting her to have the capacity to know.
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.
112 comments
B got me because I thought for A, "any damage" was too strong as the stimulus says "this damage." Ugh.
B got me lol
Almost got tricked by E.. but got it right!
I got this wrong, but I'm now understanding what I ought to be looking for when working on sufficient assumption questions.
I got this one right !
Ok, I got this one right, basically off my intuition.
But can someone explain why we can just automatically throw out answer choices with "only if" or other necessary condition indicators?
Like, what if it was established that Ms. Sandstrom had known pointing out the anomaly would cause people to flock to the farm prior to writing her column?
@JohnThorn The stimulus says: Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels' farm.
Just based on the conditional we can say: Expected damage then Pay.
The B says: One should pay for damage that one's action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action would lead other people to cause that damage.
This translates, because of the only if, into: Pay then Expected Damage.
If you already know that the main relation is E then P, whenever an answer changes that (P then E) it will be wrong.
Greatly appreciate the Simpsons inclusion. 😂
Can someone explain the difference between answer choice A and B like I have CTE? They seem the same, B is just more strict.
@JessM In the stimulus (conclusion), "should pay for this damage" is on the right side of the arrow since it is before the sufficient indicator "if". Answer choice (A) has "pay for any damage" also on the right side of the arrow because it is before the sufficient indicator "if". Whereas (B) has the necessary indicator "only if". Whatever is before "only if" is on the left side of the arrow. It is basically the wrong reversal of the conclusion. Hopefully that makes sense! I would recommend watching the foundational videos on sufficient vs necessary assumption indicators and conditional reasoning.
That hurt my head, but I got it right.
In general, is it safe to assume that when the conclusion in the stimulus has to do with something that someone "should" do, the right answer will also address that "should"?
For this question I didn't really look at C, D, or E because it didn't seem like they addressed the should claim so then I just looked at A and B because of the should piece, but I won't do that going forward if that's not a safe assumption.
yayaya!! got it right! :) was a little tricky but super happy I got it correct !
those answer choices almost gave me an aneurysm omg
@clairebraz2 lololol same
The author concludes
If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm
The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay for the damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors conditional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm. Making the conclusion airtight.
Anyone struggling like I did, hope this helps:
Compare how each following answer fits:
Notice how option D adds nothing new to the problem?
Once option D establishes that Sandstrom DID expect damage, there is no point in the conclusion asking IF she expected damage. It's redundant.
@Mitch91 Thank you!
This is a great way to visualize it. The only reason I got this right is because in the content leading up to this it was explained that what differentiates SA from MBT is that we aren't looking for the conclusion, we are looking for the missing link that would guarantee that the conclusion (in this case 'Ms. sandstrom should pay') is a MBT conclusion. The key factor for me is that in these question types we're looking for the missing premise.
I knew A was right but i was confused because of the previous explanations so I literally did not choose it I literally crossed it out and chose D
i will say the readings before this comparing MBT to SA certainly made this confusing. I pegged A as being "correct" but not what the question was asking.
the prior lessons before this really tripped me up. I thought it was A but after reading through the SA lessons I doubted myself. I think the lessons could've been explained better
Isnt A just a restatement of the conclusion. Only reason wht I didnt pick it. The question asks what is to be inferred, so i assumed we are looking for something that the author assumes about Mr. Sandstrom
@AlexHaro This is what I thought too. Exactly why i didnt choose it
@AlexHaro The author concludes
If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm
The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay fro damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors cndtional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure that if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm.
I was between A and B but eliminated B because of the "Only if" because then the only if would limit what is stated in the passage.
I was stuck between A and D... I chose D in the end
omg i got it wrong on actual and right on BR.. I'll take that bare minimum
I have found many of these questions to be much easier when you don’t read some of these incredibly confusing explanations in the lessons prior to the question. The lessons truly just make you doubt yourself and make you over think many of the questions. Additionally, I only read the explanation as to which answer is correct and why it is correct so that way I only take away what I’m supposed to be looking for in each question. There is no reason a 14 minute video is necessary to explain why an answer is correct. Less is more
I was confused because the correct answer is a principle, it does not pertain to any of the specifics of the stimulus.
Guess who fell for the oldest trick in the book?
(Me). 😭
I immediately eliminated B when I saw only if. I was between A and C and the reason I went A is for the reasons explained by the tutor. For C, I abandoned it because it is talking about Sandstrom knowing about the consequences which is different from the premise. The premise is simply stating that she could have reasonably expected, which is essentially implying that she didn't "know". Therefore, if we were to go with that answer and do a negation, the argument would still work. She "didn't know". Doesn't matter, the argument isn't relying on her knowing or not, it is expecting her to have the capacity to know.