PT22.S2.Q25 - a recent survey showed that

tanes256

Hey, guys! Can you help me make sense of my reasoning for selecting this answer choice, if that makes sense?! Lol

Ok so I chose D but I get why B is correct. I still don't know for certain that I wouldn't have the same thoughts that lead me to choose D, if presented again.

D) draws conclusion about a specific belief (more ppl believe elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted. I -> R and C - > R) based on responses to inquiries (I -> R and R - > C) about two diff specific beliefs. So basically, I said the conclusion was based on I - R and C - > R and not based on I -> R and R - > C. I said this equaled two different specific beliefs.

Does this make sense to anyone?? Or, am I just doing too much? Was I just totally off here? Hopefully I wrote this up correctly and you guys understand what I mean here. TIA
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/

akistotle

I don't know if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, but I don't think there is any conclusion about a specific belief. The conclusion is a comparison of the numbers of people who have different beliefs.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/

GrecoRoman

This is a question where you just have to good grasp of what the flaw is before going to the questions. The LSAT writers are very good at placing trap answers that are descriptively accurate(or seemingly accurate) about what the argument does, but it isn't actually a flaw. You see these trap answers a lot on flaw questions where it will say "the argument overlooks _________", which is true in that the argument does overlook that, but that isn't what the flaw of the argument is. Just keep drilling flaw questions and you'll eventually be able to spot most of them before hand or at least suspect where it might be which can guide you in the answer choices.

tanes256

@akistotle @"work all week" thx guys! JY's explanation of D helped me understand where I was going with my thinking.

AnthonyScalia

Hi guys, I need some help with this one in a different regard than what's already been discussed.

I picked A, and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the logic involved with arriving at B.

The first group of people thinks that officials should resign only if they are convicted. This is telling us that such people do not think the official should resign if the conviction isn't satisfied. But why doesn't it also mean that these people think the person should resign if convicted?

I see how the logic was translated and how you're flipping the necessary with the sufficient, but it doesn't make sense to me on a literal basis.

Let me use JY's example as a reference point on what I'm not understanding.

JY equates that first point to "If it's a fruit, it's delicious," and he equates the second piece that the argument incorrectly concludes on with "If it's delicious, it's a fruit." Clearly that's not true, because it leaves out the possibility of the thing being delicious but not a fruit. We only know for sure about the deliciousness of fruit. We don't know about the composition of things that are delicious. This false claim leaves out the possibility of a given delicious thing being ice cream or a sandwich.

Going back to our parallel, we know about the status of those who should resign. The original data told us, as indicated in JY's video, that R ----> C. We know that these people believe if you are someone who should resign, that you have been convicted. But where is the issue with flipping it? C -----> R would mean that these people believe that if you are convicted, you should resign.

How is that not the case? It is true that those people think a convicted person should resign. It doesn't mention that they wouldn't approve for any other reason, but it's still true in its bareness. If this were to parallel the fruit argument, we should have the situation where the convicted official shouldn't resign. They think the convicted official should resign 100% of the time. They just think that an official who isn't convicted should not resign.

I think I'm being tripped up by something silly here because I can see where the logic comes from clear as day. Can someone help clarify things for me?