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.
I understand the bi-conditional. Doesn't the conclusion suggest that both officers are eligible, but only one of that should receive the award? Should receive is the same exact language used when describing the additional conditionals.
For those confused on why E is incorrect, it is because the stimulus tells us what makes one eligible then proceeds to say if one is eligible here is one instance where they should be given the commendation. The stimulus doesn't say that the only way to get a commendation is to exceed reasonable expectation and save a life. It tells us that exceeding reasonable expectations and saving a life is one way to receive mayoral commendations.
In AC E we are saying both are eligible for the award (i.e. exemplary record), but we are then saying only Franklin satisfies the conditions for the receiving the award as outlined in the stimulus. This is where we have to notice that the stimulus only outlines one manner in which one obtains the award. From E we can conclude that Franklin should receive the award but we have no idea about whether we can deny/reject Penn from receiving an award.
#help I truly dont understand why E is wrong. I understand that Penn is eligible for the award. But that doesn't mean she SHOULD get the award. She still fails the the other conditions . To me both A and E work equally well
Question: I got this question wrong because I assumed that the word "should" implied that both officers had met the initial criteria of having an exemplary record. Hence why I knocked out A from my intial guess
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.
248 comments
#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.
I understand the bi-conditional. Doesn't the conclusion suggest that both officers are eligible, but only one of that should receive the award? Should receive is the same exact language used when describing the additional conditionals.
this section will be the death of me im about to crashout
For those confused on why E is incorrect, it is because the stimulus tells us what makes one eligible then proceeds to say if one is eligible here is one instance where they should be given the commendation. The stimulus doesn't say that the only way to get a commendation is to exceed reasonable expectation and save a life. It tells us that exceeding reasonable expectations and saving a life is one way to receive mayoral commendations.
In AC E we are saying both are eligible for the award (i.e. exemplary record), but we are then saying only Franklin satisfies the conditions for the receiving the award as outlined in the stimulus. This is where we have to notice that the stimulus only outlines one manner in which one obtains the award. From E we can conclude that Franklin should receive the award but we have no idea about whether we can deny/reject Penn from receiving an award.
#help I truly dont understand why E is wrong. I understand that Penn is eligible for the award. But that doesn't mean she SHOULD get the award. She still fails the the other conditions . To me both A and E work equally well
Question: I got this question wrong because I assumed that the word "should" implied that both officers had met the initial criteria of having an exemplary record. Hence why I knocked out A from my intial guess