Hi guys, can someone please help break this argument down. Thanks a lot! :)

Admin note: edited title

Hey guys!

I was hoping someone could possibly shed some light on this question. My break down of the stimulus is:

Conclusion: all whale- hunting should be banned

Premise 1: a ban on the whaling of endangered species cannot be enforced without banning the whaling of all other species

Premise 2: hunting endangered whale species should be banned

When I read the explanation in the book, they mention that premise 1 tells us that “a choice has to be made: either we do without an effective ban on the hunting of endangered species or else we ban the hunting of nonendangered species. The argument comes down in favour of banning the hunting of nonendangered species but provides no justification for preferring this choice over the alternative”

The problem I’m having is that I initially viewed that as a conditional statement. I dont see how we could chose between two options.

Any insight on this would be super helpful!

Thanks guys! :)

Admin note: edited title

Hello,

I’m having a bit of difficulty understanding when I should set up my game board as a grouping/sequence game board or an in out one. Prep test 35 game 3 and prep test 60 game 4 seem very similar to me but JY used different game boards for both. Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Hey guys,

I’ve been practicing in/out games for a while and although I understand most of it, there are a few things that still confuse me enough to throw me off. Hopefully someone can help clear that up :)

I normally get confused with conditionals. For example:

I understand /A—>B is an either or rule so at least 1 has to be in. I would put a place holder in the in group to visualize that.

B—>\C is a not both rule so at least 1 has to be out, so I would put a placeholder in the out group.

I seem to get confused when there is either a chain or a biconditional.

Ie: /A—>B—>C ( I would usually put 2 placeholders for /A—>B and /A—>C ) I get confused when A is in because then b and c become floaters and the 2nd placeholder doesn’t necessarily need to be there.

Or

If I’m given a couple of rules and they happen to link up as a biconditional. I.e -pt 83 game 3

We have

/N—>R

N—>L

R—>M

L—>/R

before I link them up I would place my placeholders. 1 in the in group (/N—>R) and one in the out group (L—>/R)

After you link them however, L, N and R become a biconditional so we know LN Always together and R is alway apart.

When I compare this to my original placeholders, I’m not sure what happened lol

Any advice would be appreciated. Please let me know if you guys would like me to clarify anything :)

Thanks!

Hey guys, for this MBT question, my gut instinct told me that the third sentence is a conditional. I interpreted it as if you reflect the cost —> would pollute less. If this is correct, how would I incorporate the second sentence into it, / reflect cost—> /affect decision to drive? I’m having a hard time seeing the overlap between these two statements.

Thanks again for your input! :)

Hey guys, i have a pretty simple question. How would you read the contrapositive of this chain:

A Some B---> C?

Thanks! :)

Hey guys. I’m hoping some of you LSAT masters can help with this question. I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around it for the past few days with no luck. I understand it is a correlation/ causation flaw, but I can’t seem to understand why D is the AC and E is wrong

Thanks :)

Admin note: edited title