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?
1
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.
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?