Isn't the conclusion here false? The two premises are sufficient conditions. So just because /Jane is no happy, does not mean /sunny day. There could be many other sufficient conditions for her to be happy, birds singing is only one of them. Can someone help explain?
I am leaving a reply because it seems no one else has. This has helped me a bit. Normally, I look at formatting, topic, etc. So much more than what I need, and should be looking at.
13
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.
21 comments
Maaannnnn it feels good to see the words: "You made it! The final frontier" Woot woot... Making progress!
what's PF? parallel flaw?
I wanted a clear description on what this section is?
Similar reasoning of method or similar flawed reasoning method?
Parallel includes both valid and flawed parallel arguments right?
is there a problem here?
argument is one:
A -> B
/B
/A
but argument two is:
A<->B
/B
/A
if and only if is different from if? is this a flaw in the lesson or are they treated the same on the LSAT?
#HELP
[This comment was deleted.]
Parallel reasoning has always been my Achilles heel. Lets see if we can make some magic happen.
I can already tell, this section is going to make me angry.
If the stimulus is flawed, I know the correct AC has to be flawed too, but does it have to be the same flaw?
For instance, let's say the stimulus overlooks a possibility. Would the correct AC also have to be overlooking a possibility?
If it is a sunny day, birds sing.
If birds sing, Jane is happy.
So, if Jane is not happy, it’s not a sunny day.
Isn't the conclusion here false? The two premises are sufficient conditions. So just because /Jane is no happy, does not mean /sunny day. There could be many other sufficient conditions for her to be happy, birds singing is only one of them. Can someone help explain?
I love this new explanation! I am coming back to review foundations, and I saw this!
I am leaving a reply because it seems no one else has. This has helped me a bit. Normally, I look at formatting, topic, etc. So much more than what I need, and should be looking at.