Before taking the question I noticed that it had more than twice the number of comments as the prior questions and I said to myself, "Guy, that's a 5-star difficulty, buckle up".
Fortunately it seems I have finally found a lesson that clicks. So far all correct and way under on time. So interesting how some things just make sense to me and others I struggle with, and how what those seem to be is different for everyone based on discussions.
I wanted to clarify my understanding, as I did choose A, but in looking at the video and all the discussion comments, I’m now confused about why B is wrong. I didn’t pick it because (A) was stronger overall. But I don’t understand now why/how (B) is confusing sufficent - necessary? From my understanding:
Mistaking a Necessary for Sufficient: "If you are a human, you breathe. Therefore, if you breathe, you are a human."
Why it's wrong: Breathing is a necessary condition, but it's not sufficient to prove you are human (dogs and cats breathe too). The argument assumes the presence of a necessary result guarantees the initial cause.
Mistaking a Sufficient -Necessary: "If you are a human, you breathe. Therefore, if you are not a human, you do not breathe."
Why it's wrong: The rule states that being human is sufficient to guarantee breathing, but it doesn't say it's necessary.
But (B) negates necessary and then negates sufficient through the contrapositive - so why is this wrong if the correct formula is applied?
the explanation for answer B. is very confusing to me. Just because you are eligible doesn't mean you get the award if you don't meet rule 2. I get how answer A can be stronger than answer B but the conclusion wasn't who is eligible but who actually takes home the award. Thus rule 2 needs to apply too.
@JosephAmoAppiah I had the same thought process, but (save life+exceeded+this year) are only the conditions (that are explicitly stated) that are SUFFICIENT to receive the award, meaning, there are other ways in which Penn could technically receive the award because he is also eligible. It is not logically sound to say he should not receive the award just because he does not meet/fails the sufficient conditions (sufficiency necessity confusion). All in all, Penn still could technically receive the award, but it is not appropriate to say he cannot, based off what we have in the stimulus.
I did not diagram this question at all. All I did was prephrase the question and then look for the answer choice that adhered to my prephrase. I did take two minutes over time. Here’s my prephrase that I wrote in my notebook, and then I simply hunted for the answer choice that adhered to its logical structure. I hope this helps you see how, once you implement this skill, this question type becomes a breeze.
IF an officer has an exemplary record and not otherwise (eligible), and did something this year that exceeded reasonable expectations and saved a life, THEN that officer should receive the award.
We are then given Officer Franklin, who should receive it, and Officer Penn, who shouldn’t. If Officer Penn should get the award, that means he satisfied all the requirements in the prephrase, and Officer Penn did not.
A) Follows the prephrase and adheres to its conditions and structure regarding Franklin and what prerequisites he must meet to actually receive the award, and it doesn’t include any contradictory information about Penn, like, for example, saying he has an exemplary record, because that would defeat the purpose of the principle—he didn’t get it for a reason.
B) Both have exemplary records, meaning both are eligible, and both saved a life this year. Why the hell didn’t they both get it then? Should I trust the principle or whatever this question is talking about?
C) Lmfao, neither of them has an exemplary record, meaning Franklin is a fraud and should be investigated by the city since he’s not even eligible for the award. This goes against the prephrase and the principle within it.
D) Now you’re telling me he saved a life and Penn did not—that’s cool, but what about his record, which makes him eligible in the first place for the award? Nope.
E) This one, on the surface, is attractive, but unless you didn’t catch the “BOTH” at the beginning of it, then you should also skip it, especially considering that A doesn’t even cast any doubt on the application or its adherence to the principle by saying that they BOTH are eligible. A is more attractive and more solid.
I think E is wrong because it has a gap, saying that the instances in which an officer did something beyond what is reasonably expected IS SEPARATE from the instances in which the act saved someones life. There is no indication in AC E that these two clauses happen together. If you look at the passage it goes like this...
If the act saved someones life, then the officer is eligible for the award if they did something this year that went beyond what was reasonably expected.
Because the passage says that "saving someones life" is the sufficient condition, this needs to be true(on top of having an exemplary record).
E DOES NOT 100% give us that truth.
This is how I understood it and I hope this helps others.
I don't understand why Penn not saving a person's life doesn't disqualify him from the award. If the logic is that those who need do something this year that saved a life and exceed expectations should be eligible then wouldn't the contrapositive of that be that someone who did not do those things (AC E) should not be eligible?
ngl i only got this when i decided to eliminate all answers that said "Pen had exemplary record" and took having exe... records as the only necessary condition to get an award.
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 is not even eligible which is why AC A is correct.
290 comments
Wrong at first, I picked E but then I got it right on BR because I took the time and wrote it down. Once I wrote it down it clicked.
Before taking the question I noticed that it had more than twice the number of comments as the prior questions and I said to myself, "Guy, that's a 5-star difficulty, buckle up".
Fortunately it seems I have finally found a lesson that clicks. So far all correct and way under on time. So interesting how some things just make sense to me and others I struggle with, and how what those seem to be is different for everyone based on discussions.
"but not otherwise"??????
BR is the goat
basically look for something that DISQUALIFIES Penn from even being considered for the award (no good record)
I wanted to clarify my understanding, as I did choose A, but in looking at the video and all the discussion comments, I’m now confused about why B is wrong. I didn’t pick it because (A) was stronger overall. But I don’t understand now why/how (B) is confusing sufficent - necessary? From my understanding:
Mistaking a Necessary for Sufficient: "If you are a human, you breathe. Therefore, if you breathe, you are a human."
Why it's wrong: Breathing is a necessary condition, but it's not sufficient to prove you are human (dogs and cats breathe too). The argument assumes the presence of a necessary result guarantees the initial cause.
Mistaking a Sufficient -Necessary: "If you are a human, you breathe. Therefore, if you are not a human, you do not breathe."
Why it's wrong: The rule states that being human is sufficient to guarantee breathing, but it doesn't say it's necessary.
But (B) negates necessary and then negates sufficient through the contrapositive - so why is this wrong if the correct formula is applied?
This question was pretty hard at first, but I got it quickly on BR.
I feel dumb getting this question wrong after seeing the explanation haha. but now I know what "but not otherwise" means.
this question has been the most straightforward for me thus far
the explanation for answer B. is very confusing to me. Just because you are eligible doesn't mean you get the award if you don't meet rule 2. I get how answer A can be stronger than answer B but the conclusion wasn't who is eligible but who actually takes home the award. Thus rule 2 needs to apply too.
@JosephAmoAppiah I had the same thought process, but (save life+exceeded+this year) are only the conditions (that are explicitly stated) that are SUFFICIENT to receive the award, meaning, there are other ways in which Penn could technically receive the award because he is also eligible. It is not logically sound to say he should not receive the award just because he does not meet/fails the sufficient conditions (sufficiency necessity confusion). All in all, Penn still could technically receive the award, but it is not appropriate to say he cannot, based off what we have in the stimulus.
I did not diagram this question at all. All I did was prephrase the question and then look for the answer choice that adhered to my prephrase. I did take two minutes over time. Here’s my prephrase that I wrote in my notebook, and then I simply hunted for the answer choice that adhered to its logical structure. I hope this helps you see how, once you implement this skill, this question type becomes a breeze.
We are then given Officer Franklin, who should receive it, and Officer Penn, who shouldn’t. If Officer Penn should get the award, that means he satisfied all the requirements in the prephrase, and Officer Penn did not.
A) Follows the prephrase and adheres to its conditions and structure regarding Franklin and what prerequisites he must meet to actually receive the award, and it doesn’t include any contradictory information about Penn, like, for example, saying he has an exemplary record, because that would defeat the purpose of the principle—he didn’t get it for a reason.
B) Both have exemplary records, meaning both are eligible, and both saved a life this year. Why the hell didn’t they both get it then? Should I trust the principle or whatever this question is talking about?
C) Lmfao, neither of them has an exemplary record, meaning Franklin is a fraud and should be investigated by the city since he’s not even eligible for the award. This goes against the prephrase and the principle within it.
D) Now you’re telling me he saved a life and Penn did not—that’s cool, but what about his record, which makes him eligible in the first place for the award? Nope.
E) This one, on the surface, is attractive, but unless you didn’t catch the “BOTH” at the beginning of it, then you should also skip it, especially considering that A doesn’t even cast any doubt on the application or its adherence to the principle by saying that they BOTH are eligible. A is more attractive and more solid.
also : BUT NOT OTHERWISE is always biconditional indicator?
So we have to show everything that is written in the premises for the answer to follow.
I miss the easy ones, but when it comes to a 5 level difficulty I get it right in 58 seconds! -1:11 on the timing? What is happening lol
I think E is wrong because it has a gap, saying that the instances in which an officer did something beyond what is reasonably expected IS SEPARATE from the instances in which the act saved someones life. There is no indication in AC E that these two clauses happen together. If you look at the passage it goes like this...
If the act saved someones life, then the officer is eligible for the award if they did something this year that went beyond what was reasonably expected.
Because the passage says that "saving someones life" is the sufficient condition, this needs to be true(on top of having an exemplary record).
E DOES NOT 100% give us that truth.
This is how I understood it and I hope this helps others.
I don't understand why Penn not saving a person's life doesn't disqualify him from the award. If the logic is that those who need do something this year that saved a life and exceed expectations should be eligible then wouldn't the contrapositive of that be that someone who did not do those things (AC E) should not be eligible?
BANGGGG Timing on the dot as well
Hoping I get many level 5 questions on my LSAT because I've never gotten a level 5 wrong (those level 2s and 3s, on the other hand.....)
@SofiyaBerman literally was about to comment this lol why do level 5s come so natural but the 2s and 3s are tripping me whyyyyy
+1:04 on timing but I'm so happy that I got this level 5 question right!
ngl i only got this when i decided to eliminate all answers that said "Pen had exemplary record" and took having exe... records as the only necessary condition to get an award.
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 is not even eligible which is why AC A is correct.