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
I got the question right, but had no idea why B was even "wrong" necessarily, I just thought A was logically stronger. That sufficient/necessary explanation cleared some things up that I think will help me avoid wrong answers in the future
Initially I thought the contrapositive would apply to Officer Penn, but eventually I realized that trying to apply the contrapositive would confuse sufficiency for necessity. If we know Officer Penn is should not receive commendation, we can validly conclude either that he did not save someone's life or go beyond reasonable expectations, but we cannot use the failure to achieve one of these to validly conclude he should not receive the award.
why do we assume the eligibility aspect... wouldn't it make sense for someone to deserve the award based on satisfying the second condition but they are simply ineligible?
I picked almost all the wrong answers before getting the right one, because I read the "Penn should not" as more of an evaluative statement that correlates with the "a police offer should receive the award" that is part of Rule 2 (act, saved life, exceed reasonable expectation). Rule 1 (eligibility) was stated in a more black and white way, so I didn't read that there would be an evaluative "should/should not" involved; I would have expected something correlated with Rule 1 to say "can/cannot" or "will/will not". So I did not understand that Penn had to fail Rule 1.
After reading/watching, I understand to look out for sufficiency-necessity fallacies in both the stimulus and the answer choices.
Stimulus: does not state that Rule 2 is the ONLY way to receive the award. Not an if and only if rule. So Rule 2 cannot yield any conclusions for failing the sufficiency conditions. That is why Penn has to fail Rule 1.
Answer Choices: we already know failing the sufficiency conditions for Rule 2 does not yield any conclusions. But remember for the future (where a rule could yield valid conclusions), a particular instance of failing a sufficient condition does not mean that was the only instance. (Answer Choice B)
Why does Penn have to be not eligible. is there not a case where Franklin and Penn are both eligible for having exemplary records but Penn could have not saved someone's life and exceeded reasonable expectations? But Franklin has?
if E didn't have the 2nd defect wouldn't E be correct? #help
Another distinction between A and E is that the stimulus outlines that the action must exceed reasonable expectations and also save a life at the same time. A clearly satisfies this criteria. On the other hand, E states that officer Franklin has saved lives several times, and exceeded expectations several times as well, but these could be separate instances. Franklin could have saved lives without exceeding reasonable expectations and exceeded expectations without saving a single life.
0
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.
256 comments
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
I got the question right, but had no idea why B was even "wrong" necessarily, I just thought A was logically stronger. That sufficient/necessary explanation cleared some things up that I think will help me avoid wrong answers in the future
the "in doing so" got me in (B). Parsed too hard :(
Initially I thought the contrapositive would apply to Officer Penn, but eventually I realized that trying to apply the contrapositive would confuse sufficiency for necessity. If we know Officer Penn is should not receive commendation, we can validly conclude either that he did not save someone's life or go beyond reasonable expectations, but we cannot use the failure to achieve one of these to validly conclude he should not receive the award.
why do we assume the eligibility aspect... wouldn't it make sense for someone to deserve the award based on satisfying the second condition but they are simply ineligible?
I picked almost all the wrong answers before getting the right one, because I read the "Penn should not" as more of an evaluative statement that correlates with the "a police offer should receive the award" that is part of Rule 2 (act, saved life, exceed reasonable expectation). Rule 1 (eligibility) was stated in a more black and white way, so I didn't read that there would be an evaluative "should/should not" involved; I would have expected something correlated with Rule 1 to say "can/cannot" or "will/will not". So I did not understand that Penn had to fail Rule 1.
After reading/watching, I understand to look out for sufficiency-necessity fallacies in both the stimulus and the answer choices.
Stimulus: does not state that Rule 2 is the ONLY way to receive the award. Not an if and only if rule. So Rule 2 cannot yield any conclusions for failing the sufficiency conditions. That is why Penn has to fail Rule 1.
Answer Choices: we already know failing the sufficiency conditions for Rule 2 does not yield any conclusions. But remember for the future (where a rule could yield valid conclusions), a particular instance of failing a sufficient condition does not mean that was the only instance. (Answer Choice B)
Why does Penn have to be not eligible. is there not a case where Franklin and Penn are both eligible for having exemplary records but Penn could have not saved someone's life and exceeded reasonable expectations? But Franklin has?
if E didn't have the 2nd defect wouldn't E be correct? #help
Another distinction between A and E is that the stimulus outlines that the action must exceed reasonable expectations and also save a life at the same time. A clearly satisfies this criteria. On the other hand, E states that officer Franklin has saved lives several times, and exceeded expectations several times as well, but these could be separate instances. Franklin could have saved lives without exceeding reasonable expectations and exceeded expectations without saving a single life.