So this basically just boils down to just because these three conditions are sufficient to get the award, it is not NEEDED there can be other avenues to get the award. So not qualifying one does not automatically disqualify Penn from receiving the award because potentially he can receive the award from a different avenue. making AC E. and B. wrong. The easiest way to make sure Penn does not get the award basically would just be to make sure he does is not even eligible which is why AC A is correct.
I got it down to A vs B but could not for the life of me choose which one was best, so I picked B, then A in BR.
I think in this case, if you start thinking too hard you start making more and more assumptions and it's easier to mix up suff/nec in your head and maybe even interpret the conclusion incorrectly.
IRL, I would argue B would absolutely be correct. Penn should not get the award. He did not exceed. If he made fuss about not getting the award, everyone would ask him to take a deep breath and have a nap.
A is the better and clearer answer, but it's super hard to fully eliminate B because the application of the principle IRL means Penn is not getting that award, try again next year.
BUT my reasoning leads to a different conclusion. The conclusion B is getting at is "Officer Penn DID not receive an award." If he did not receive an award, then he must not have met a sufficient condition for R2.
Watch out for, "but not otherwise". That group of words means, and.
So, you need to have an exemplary record AND do something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer...saved someone's life.
Answer choice A links the conclusion to the principle.
Answer Choice A:
In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.
Why is this right...?
Franklin and Penn both risked their lives saving someone. Great! This satisfies the sufficient condition that both officers saved someone.
BUT, Penn doesn't have an exemplary record.
Therefore, Franklin is eligible for the reward, but Penn is not because he doesn't satisfy the other sufficient condition, having an exemplary record.
Principle:
Exemplary record AND saving someone's life --> eligible for Mayor's reward.
Here is the conclusion of the principle:
Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor's Commendation, but Officer Penn should not.
I chose B becasue it actually made sense in the context of who SHOULD recive the award. The argument for why B is wrong relys on the fact that "Penn is still eligable. He can still recive the award."
Correct, but the conclusion is who SHOULD recive the award. If they're both eligable that's fine, but if Franklin went above and beyond, then that gives reason why he should be awarded.
I understand why A is right, but I cannot grasp your reasoning for why B is wrong.
Ugh, I do not understand why my brain keeps confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. I do it every time, my biggest weakness and it is such a bad one to have. Like, as he is explaining it I am like GAH yep, of course. I see it. But I seemingly cannot get sufficient and necessary's locked in place. Ugh. Better luck next time I suppose.
A. Has to have exemplary record: eligible (has to; without it - answer doesn't matter)
B. Exceeded expectations
C. Saved life
_____
Conclusion: Receive award
Answer choice A: Franklin and Penn risked their lives to save a child from drowning - conditions (Conditions B and C - CHECK). Franklin has exemplary record, Penn does not. (Penn is not even eligible, and should not get it, but Franklin checks all the conditions. [full disclosure]
!!! [TRICKY] Answer choice B: F and P have exemplary records and saved a child from drowning (A and C - Check). Franklin went above and beyond, Penn did not. Even though Penn did not go what's reasonably expected (failing condition B), he is still eligible for the award and could receive it despite not going above and beyond (could be for a different reason). Him not going above and beyond does not automatically disqualify him, based on the rules described.
Answer choice C: "Neither Franklin nor Penn has an exemplary record" --> Well, you can eliminate this option right there, since neither are even eligible for the award.
Answer choice D: We're not told whether they are even eligible to get the award. We can't assume they just have exemplary records at face value --> ELIMINATED.
Answer choice E: Similar as (B): they're both eligible, but the fact that Franklin has saved lives and went above and beyond does not disqualify Penn from getting it (Penn still has an examplary record and is thus eligible; he could get the award for another reason(s) that have nothing to do with going above and beyond and/or saving someone's life).
I got this in 1 minute somehow, which was because I managed to see through the logic and find the trap they set.
The stim tells us that:
An exemplary record (ER) is necessary for eligibility, and without one, you cannot be eligible (note where it said but not otherwise).
Exceeding reasonable expectations is one way to become eligible, but it never said it is the only way.
Any option that doesn't tell us that Penn doesn't have an ER is automatically false. C and D are out.
This why A is correct and both B and E are wrong. They just tell us that Penn hasn't done something to exceed expectations. What if another rule for eligibility is 20 years of service? He could qualify that way, but we don't know that.
LSAC preys on your mental battery by overloading you with wrong options that look similar and have a lot of words but only tiny differences to wear you down when you try to differentiate. They also do it so you waste time, then panic over the wasted time, and do even worse. Not just LSAC too, lawyers try to trip themselves up all the time in real life too. Hell, one day we might be the ones laying traps for other lawyers.
So just relax. Don't let them get to you. This is why we (hopefully) get paid the big bucks.
I understand how I got the question wrong because I didn't understand the grammar of the question. My question is what are some tips for us to realize we are dealing with a bi-conditional ?
I got this correct quickly somehow. I went through this question through the lense of a spectrum like a strengthen question, in the sense of which one gaps the best! A gapped the best bridge, while the others were great, it wasn't a solid best.
so i am doing these SA questions and so far i have got 3/4 (including this one) but why the SA tab is showing me that i only have 8% accuracy in these questions?
I missed 2 so far, for those who feel bad, really deep dive into why you go the choice wrong, read whats written and maybe write 1 sentence of what J.Y. is getting at, such as, write out the gist of what you are reading so you are not too lost in the fields of logic and reading. (If its something you already know why, such as misreading a word on the correct answer choice or stimulus, then don't).
I am working on time saving methods and finished in 01:03, I hope this helps. All the facts are perfect in A so I selected it immediately without POE. If I did POE, here is why each does not work for B and E.
((The fact that Penn has an exemplary record in some answers means he is eligible for the award)) The answers try to trick you into assuming otherwise.
We are told an exemplary record is a (must) but exceeding reasonable expectation and saving life is a should receive + if. That is just a weaker reason and harder to bridge gap than must and only.
B is wrong simply because it tries to find another way to solve the answer even though it does not satisfy the MUST claim of their records. B finds a different way to tell you why its right, it is just less right in that way.
E does the same as B and then it adds the issues of the several occasions.
If A did not satisfy the (but not otherwise) claim then maybe the others could be good. But it is the best answer because it satisfies the records rule and it also satisfies the exceeded + life saving. The other trick answers try to find some alternative way. But we already have the best way so why make things more complicated?
Does anyone have advce on how to stop making the suffiency-necessity fallacy error mentioned in Answer B? I keep getting sufficency and necessity confused for one another on all the questions
2
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!
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.
266 comments
I did the process of elimination and was stuck in between B and A. Chose B initially and then A in the BR:/ I need to work on these
The rule says the three things are sufficient, not required.
The rule is:
That means:
If all three happen → the award must happen ✔️
But if one is missing → we cannot say the award won’t happen ❌
Because the rule never said:
So this basically just boils down to just because these three conditions are sufficient to get the award, it is not NEEDED there can be other avenues to get the award. So not qualifying one does not automatically disqualify Penn from receiving the award because potentially he can receive the award from a different avenue. making AC E. and B. wrong. The easiest way to make sure Penn does not get the award basically would just be to make sure he does is not even eligible which is why AC A is correct.
I got it down to A vs B but could not for the life of me choose which one was best, so I picked B, then A in BR.
I think in this case, if you start thinking too hard you start making more and more assumptions and it's easier to mix up suff/nec in your head and maybe even interpret the conclusion incorrectly.
IRL, I would argue B would absolutely be correct. Penn should not get the award. He did not exceed. If he made fuss about not getting the award, everyone would ask him to take a deep breath and have a nap.
A is the better and clearer answer, but it's super hard to fully eliminate B because the application of the principle IRL means Penn is not getting that award, try again next year.
BUT my reasoning leads to a different conclusion. The conclusion B is getting at is "Officer Penn DID not receive an award." If he did not receive an award, then he must not have met a sufficient condition for R2.
That's the trick...
I am only getting these right in BR :(
forever together biconditional <3
Watch out for, "but not otherwise". That group of words means, and.
So, you need to have an exemplary record AND do something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer...saved someone's life.
Answer choice A links the conclusion to the principle.
Answer Choice A:
In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.
Why is this right...?
Franklin and Penn both risked their lives saving someone. Great! This satisfies the sufficient condition that both officers saved someone.
BUT, Penn doesn't have an exemplary record.
Therefore, Franklin is eligible for the reward, but Penn is not because he doesn't satisfy the other sufficient condition, having an exemplary record.
Principle:
Exemplary record AND saving someone's life --> eligible for Mayor's reward.
Here is the conclusion of the principle:
Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor's Commendation, but Officer Penn should not.
I chose B becasue it actually made sense in the context of who SHOULD recive the award. The argument for why B is wrong relys on the fact that "Penn is still eligable. He can still recive the award."
Correct, but the conclusion is who SHOULD recive the award. If they're both eligable that's fine, but if Franklin went above and beyond, then that gives reason why he should be awarded.
I understand why A is right, but I cannot grasp your reasoning for why B is wrong.
Ugh, I do not understand why my brain keeps confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. I do it every time, my biggest weakness and it is such a bad one to have. Like, as he is explaining it I am like GAH yep, of course. I see it. But I seemingly cannot get sufficient and necessary's locked in place. Ugh. Better luck next time I suppose.
From the stimulus:
A. Has to have exemplary record: eligible (has to; without it - answer doesn't matter)
B. Exceeded expectations
C. Saved life
_____
Conclusion: Receive award
Answer choice A: Franklin and Penn risked their lives to save a child from drowning - conditions (Conditions B and C - CHECK). Franklin has exemplary record, Penn does not. (Penn is not even eligible, and should not get it, but Franklin checks all the conditions. [full disclosure]
!!! [TRICKY] Answer choice B: F and P have exemplary records and saved a child from drowning (A and C - Check). Franklin went above and beyond, Penn did not. Even though Penn did not go what's reasonably expected (failing condition B), he is still eligible for the award and could receive it despite not going above and beyond (could be for a different reason). Him not going above and beyond does not automatically disqualify him, based on the rules described.
Answer choice C: "Neither Franklin nor Penn has an exemplary record" --> Well, you can eliminate this option right there, since neither are even eligible for the award.
Answer choice D: We're not told whether they are even eligible to get the award. We can't assume they just have exemplary records at face value --> ELIMINATED.
Answer choice E: Similar as (B): they're both eligible, but the fact that Franklin has saved lives and went above and beyond does not disqualify Penn from getting it (Penn still has an examplary record and is thus eligible; he could get the award for another reason(s) that have nothing to do with going above and beyond and/or saving someone's life).
Was anyone else confused by the "not otherwise"
I've never seen that used in writing ever, and it really confused me what it meant.
I got this in 1 minute somehow, which was because I managed to see through the logic and find the trap they set.
The stim tells us that:
An exemplary record (ER) is necessary for eligibility, and without one, you cannot be eligible (note where it said but not otherwise).
Exceeding reasonable expectations is one way to become eligible, but it never said it is the only way.
Any option that doesn't tell us that Penn doesn't have an ER is automatically false. C and D are out.
This why A is correct and both B and E are wrong. They just tell us that Penn hasn't done something to exceed expectations. What if another rule for eligibility is 20 years of service? He could qualify that way, but we don't know that.
LSAC preys on your mental battery by overloading you with wrong options that look similar and have a lot of words but only tiny differences to wear you down when you try to differentiate. They also do it so you waste time, then panic over the wasted time, and do even worse. Not just LSAC too, lawyers try to trip themselves up all the time in real life too. Hell, one day we might be the ones laying traps for other lawyers.
So just relax. Don't let them get to you. This is why we (hopefully) get paid the big bucks.
#feedback
I understand how I got the question wrong because I didn't understand the grammar of the question. My question is what are some tips for us to realize we are dealing with a bi-conditional ?
I got this correct quickly somehow. I went through this question through the lense of a spectrum like a strengthen question, in the sense of which one gaps the best! A gapped the best bridge, while the others were great, it wasn't a solid best.
#help #help #help
Can someone explain how we are supposed to know this is a bi-conditional EVEN after mapping out:
ER --> eligible
/ER --> /eligible
I don't think I'd be able to recognize that this is a bi-conditional
This didn't feel like a 5-star question but something something practicing for the LSAT actually makes you better something something....
am I cooked
weird question!
so i am doing these SA questions and so far i have got 3/4 (including this one) but why the SA tab is showing me that i only have 8% accuracy in these questions?
got this one wrong... ughhhhhhhhhh
had the correct answer selected for a minute and a half and went 22 secs over bc i was unsure </3
I missed 2 so far, for those who feel bad, really deep dive into why you go the choice wrong, read whats written and maybe write 1 sentence of what J.Y. is getting at, such as, write out the gist of what you are reading so you are not too lost in the fields of logic and reading. (If its something you already know why, such as misreading a word on the correct answer choice or stimulus, then don't).
0 for 4 this is getting bleak
0 for 4 in this chapter right now feeling like a dumbass
edit: ok coming back to this, i started to pick up the patterns and did really well after this. If you're reading this comment you got this!!!!!
I am working on time saving methods and finished in 01:03, I hope this helps. All the facts are perfect in A so I selected it immediately without POE. If I did POE, here is why each does not work for B and E.
((The fact that Penn has an exemplary record in some answers means he is eligible for the award)) The answers try to trick you into assuming otherwise.
We are told an exemplary record is a (must) but exceeding reasonable expectation and saving life is a should receive + if. That is just a weaker reason and harder to bridge gap than must and only.
B is wrong simply because it tries to find another way to solve the answer even though it does not satisfy the MUST claim of their records. B finds a different way to tell you why its right, it is just less right in that way.
E does the same as B and then it adds the issues of the several occasions.
If A did not satisfy the (but not otherwise) claim then maybe the others could be good. But it is the best answer because it satisfies the records rule and it also satisfies the exceeded + life saving. The other trick answers try to find some alternative way. But we already have the best way so why make things more complicated?
Why not E?
Does anyone have advce on how to stop making the suffiency-necessity fallacy error mentioned in Answer B? I keep getting sufficency and necessity confused for one another on all the questions