PT53.S1.Q18 - when a salesperson is successful

M.Yanka106

Hi,

If you watched the video explanation for this question, could you please help me understand what exactly is it saying? I watch it at least 15 times and I am still puzzled by it. Read all the related posting, still no help.

While taking the test, I saw that the necessary and sufficient conditions have been flipped (assuming this is the flaw). However, I couldn’t locate the correct answer choice that explains this flaw.

I just cannot wrap my head around the video explanation as to why B is the correct answer choice. Is it correct because it points to the flipping of the necessary-sufficient condition or is it the correct answer choice because it points to the mistake of “success in sale” is not the same as “making a comfortable living in sales”? or is it something else?

Answer choice B is saying that if P --> Q does not preclude the possibility of R --> Q. Is this statement necessarily pointing to confusion in necessary and sufficient condition? In my head, this shows confusion as to what sufficient condition entails.
Are we not trying to bridge the gap between premise and conclusion?

Answer choices A and C is equally confusing. Are we supposed to look at the conclusion statement [at least three years developing a client base --> make a comfortable living in sales] while analyzing these answer choices or the statements in the premise [success --> in sales for at least 3 years].

Any help?

Thank you
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-18/

Sarah889

Let's start from the beginning by clearly identifying each component of the argument.

P1: To succeed as a salesperson, one must first establish a strong client base.
P2: Studies have shown that anyone who spends at least three years developing a client base can eventually make a comfortable living in sales.
C: Therefore, it must be the case that if you are a successful sales person, you had to have been in sales for at least three years.

P1: S--> SCB
P2: 3+ --> C
C: S --> 3+

Regarding the comfortable/successful distinction, I believe that the LSAT writers want you to recognize "comfortable living salespeople" as a broader version of "successful salespeople." For example, if you are successful, then you make a comfortable living (not necessarily the other way around).

So, when the argument mentions "successful salespeople," it is talking about a subcategory of "people who make a comfortable living in sales." "People who make a comfortable living in sales" can include successful salespeople, mediocre salespeople, even terrible salespeople who are still making enough to "live comfortably."

That being established, you could also translate the argument like this, which might the error more clear:
(If you haven't already, go watch JY's videos on conditional logic.)

P1: Some people who make a comfortable living in sales (i.e., successful sales people) have a successful client base.
P2: All people who spent at least 3 years developing a client base can eventually make a comfortable living in sales.
C: All successful sales people have been in sales for 3+ years.

P1: C some SCB
P2: 3+ --> C
C: S --> 3+

Do you see what the argument is doing there? It would be the equivalent of me saying "Sometimes employers are strict; every time an employee shows up late, employers are strict; therefore, every time my boss at Olive Garden is strict, it's when an employee showed up late."

B requires you to see that successful people are a subcategory of those making a comfortable living, but also that the conclusion makes an erroneous assumption when it concludes that the necessary condition in P2 is also a sufficient condition, like you pointed out. There are two things going on there. Regarding my earlier example, B is equivalent to someone saying "well...wait. There are some instances when your boss at Olive Garden is strict even when an employee did not show up late."

A is wrong because the argument doesn't advocate this. The argument says at least three years, which means no less than three years. It could still be 10 years, 15 years, etc. The argument only asserts that it cannot be less than 3 years.

C is wrong because it is merely saying /3+ --> /S, which is just the contrapositive of the conclusion. So, essentially, C just reiterates the conclusion.

D is wrong because the argument still leaves open this possibility. Like I noted in A, the only thing that this argument is saying is that the time frame cannot be less than 3 years. It may very well be more, even in every case.

E is wrong because it does not pertain to this argument at all. All this does is inform us that there are few successful salespeople in the world.

Please let me know if any of this is unclear or if you still have lingering questions.

M.Yanka106

Hi bswise2,

Thanks for the response. I wish 7sages has not edited the subject of my post (it said clarification for video explanation). Yes, I did the CC and understand what you are saying. Watch the video posted right under my post. I think you got one of the conditional statements mixed up here. Are you saying that "S --> 3+" is the final conclusion? or intermediary conclusion? Because I see 2 conclusions in the argument given. I completely agree with everything you have written. My question is very, very specific- how does Answer choice B show that there is a necessary-sufficient confusion in relation to the premise given. The some statements you given here as example is the same as my statement about "P --> Q does not preclude the possibility of R --> Q" (I am just looking at this from a different angle). Could you please watch the video link and let me know what you think? I appreciate your time.

Sarah889

No problem @M.Yanka106 ! Happy to help.

After watching the video, I don't see what conditional you think I may have messed up. Maybe you can point it out to me? My conditionals seem to match up with JY's.

And yes, I am saying that the first sentence in the stimulus is the conclusion, which translates to S-->3+ . I don't see which part of this argument you are referring to as the "intermediary conclusion." Maybe you can point that out to me as well.

From my perspective, this argument form has three components. Within the stimulus, they are presented as: C, P1 and P2, respectively.

JY seems to eliminate P2 in order to arrive at answer choice B, which also is a fine way to do it. That's not my instinct, because going into the answer choices, I cannot know how important that last premise will be to the answer choice. In this case, JY asserts that it wasn't important at all, enough so that we can disregard it. I personally am not confident enough to do that, but for those more familiar with what LSAC will throw at us, go right ahead.

I would like to appreciate this question from your angle, so maybe you can explain a little bit more what you mean by "P --> Q does not preclude the possibility of R --> Q"? In this argument, what does the P, R and Q stand for? I don't think I'm quite clear as to what you are confused about.

M.Yanka106

bswise2,

Thank you for taking the time. I see where I got confused- a silly mistake and I did not even realize it. Your response made me look at the argument again. Thanks again for the explanation and your time.