Self-paced
Mr.LosAngeles
- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
Goal score: 180
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2027
of all the tutors that posted in this discussion, I did not find an easy-to-follow and clear explanation. Instead, the explanations were convoluted and more puzzling than the stimulus, summary and video. Here is what I gathered, after reviewing and consulting with ChatGPT...
"It is rational not to acquire such information unless one expects that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so"
this premise should NOT be interpreted as having a conjunction as part of the sufficient condition. in other words. don't get confused and think that having X AND Y --> Z. This is not the (only) way to understand it..
instead, think of it has A unless B. "A" is represented by the first clause, "It is rational not to acquire such information". Now, "B" is represented by the second clause, "one expects that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so"
with that in mind, think of A unless B as being equal to -[B] then [A]. so, in plain english, this means: one who DOESN'T expect that the benefits will outweigh the costs will [Necessary indicator] find it rational not to acquire information (pros/cons of a product before purchase).
In lawgic:
-[B] = /(benefits don't outweigh)
[A] = rational (...not to acquire)
Now, conclusion is really just saying if you (consumer - the only subject in the stimulus) don't acquire the information then you are being rational.
in lawgic, this means:
[NA] = don't acquire the info
[A] = Rational
all together:
-[B] --> [A]
--------------
[NA] --> [A]
Finally, we can spot that the easiest/clearest way to have the conclusion "properly drawn" is by assuming that there is a bridge between [NA] --> -[B]. in other words, if one is NOT acquiring the info then this means the benefits DO NOT outweigh the costs.