Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I rise in defense of answer choice C, as it is clear as the day is long that a compelling argument can be made for the veracity of C, and moreover for why this contemptible trick question (and JY’s explanation!) are guilty of nothing less than the high crime of bamboozlement.
Let the record reflect that while giving his so-called "explanation" JY vigorously underlined “U->F” whilst saying: “The argument isn’t even taking this to be true” - however, quite to the contrary as I'm sure you agree, the argument to follow desperately builds upon this VERY premise, beginning its conclusion with the language “if so”, which, especially in light of the conclusion’s hefty thrust, understandably CAN, but, more importantly SHOULD be read as supposing something to be true, i.e., taking something for granted, which, of course, is precisely what my much maligned client, the ever-true C, had quite clearly conveyed.
We thereby humbly beseech the court to redress these grievous injuries and exonerate C.
The defense rests.
Thanks, @ I appreciate you chiming in!
Friends,
In order to practice conditional logic diagrams, does anyone know if there exists a list of LR questions that include conditional logic?
For instance, on PT59 / Section 1 / Game 3 there is an addendum with a list of similar LG questions: (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-1-game-3/)
Thanks in advance!
Before we internalize this eureka moment too much, consider this, the "correct" answer choice fails to follow the exact "rule" we are to have learned.
The "correct" answer choice first says "fresh ingredients" and later says "very fresh ingredients".
Are fresh ingredients the same as very fresh? Haven't we encountered certain questions in which assuming such things led to error?
I seem to recall a trick question awhile back about narrow and wide boards that hinged on the phrase: "was not significantly less expensive" which according to JY meant that all we knew was that it wasn't "significantly less expensive" but very well could have meant it was "less expensive" or "more expensive".
Thus, just as there is a qualitative difference between "good things to eat and drink" and "things to eat and drink" there is also a qualitative difference between "fresh ingredients" and "very fresh ingredients".
Isn't there a significant difference between being "tall" and "very tall"? It is totally within the realm of possibility than one might like dating "tall men" but not like "very tall men". Might not "very fresh ingredients" be too pungent?
I don't know, but this seems to be the game we are being trained to play!
Focussing on such minutiae will serve us well as lawyers, but I don't believe LSAT world is internally consistent enough.
I can think of many more questions in which such subtle changes are overlooked.
A few questions back we encountered a question which used the term "adult" and the correct answer choice included its supposed opposite "child" - however according to LSAT world this doesn't follow, as the opposite of "adult" is "not adult" since one might very well argue that other categories such as "teenager", etc. exist.
Bah humbug!
This one threw me off.
First, as others have pointed out in Answer Choice B I debated whether or not "Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party" was even a conditional statement.
Second, I got hung up on Answer Choice E:
"When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail, so clearly the law is not enforced"
I figured the "some" was likely trying to trick us from looking further since "some" can mean as much as 100%.
So I translated the first clause as:
A some B
Next, I translated the second clause using "NO" as a Group #4 logical indicator (Pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make that idea the necessary condition and put it on the right side of the equation):
/A -> /B.
Why isn't this ALSO correct?
Thanks!
#help
#admin
I'm interested as well
I guess this one teaches a huge lesson: the LSAT is not significantly less annoying than being tortured.