PT54.S4.Q22 - The short-term and long-term interests

NotMyName

I don’t get it. AC B looks to be necessary but not sufficient.

A->(B-most->C)
Therefore
B<-some->D

AC B gives us C<-some->D

Which allows us to draw: B-most->C<-some->D

But we can’t conclude that any Bs are Ds from this conditional chain. That is an invalid argument.

I got this question right but only because B came the closest (C/D/E don't even contain the new idea which is found in the conclusion and A was intuitively wrong). Maybe I am misunderstanding the logical relationships? JY didn't mention this issue and neither does the Manhattan forum.

If we were to change the premise to C-most->B, then AC B would allow us to conclude B<-some->D but I don't think that's the correct translation. The Manhattan forum agrees with me on this.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-22/

Admin note: edited title

NotMyName

HA!

NotMyName

IT'S A BI-CONDITIONAL MOST STATEMENT!

NotMyName

We are only dealing with 2 options: long-term or short-term and not both since they conflict. Therefore, if the long-term is usually the morally preferable option in these cases, then it must also be true that the morally preferable option is the long-term in these cases.

Which means the logic looks like this:

A->(B<-most->C)
Therefore
B<-some->D

AC B gives us C<-some->D

FixedDice

@jkatz1488 said:
We are only dealing with 2 options: long-term or short-term and not both since they conflict.

Are you sure you are not setting up a false dichotomy? Midterm goals exist, you know

Seriously though, I had this exact same problem and reached the same conclusion. I have been and am still stuck, however. See, I really don't think

B <--m--> C <--s--> D

which I believe may be illustrated as

(B) ▮▮▮▮▮▯▯▯
(C) ▯▯▮▮▮▮▮▯
(D) ▯▯▯▯▯▯▮▮

can lead one to validly conclude that some Bs are Ds.

I have two reasons for accepting (B) and moving on:

1. "[O]ften" in the context of this particular problem is meant to be interpreted as most, not some;
2. (B) is the best of a bad lot.

Unless somebody shows me I am mistaken, of course.

NotMyName

I don't believe you've represented "B <--m--> C <--s--> D" correctly since B and C only share 3 of their 8 components. But you're right in that I'm applying an invalid argument form. B and D do not need to share any terms. Here's how I think the relationship should be represented.

▮▮▮▮▮▯▯▯ (B)
▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▯ (C)
▯▯▯▯▯▯▮▮ (D)

In my eagerness to find sufficiency, I fell into a rookie invalid argument form.

Unless someone can add insight, I have to agree with your points 1 and 2. It should be a PSA question and not SA. Thanks for correcting me!

NotMyName

But in terms of the false dichotomy, I do think it's one or the other in this case since we are told "when these goals conflict".

BinghamtonDave

@jkatz1488 I actually don't think logic helps us that much here. There is no valid conclusion from "B <--m--> C <--s--> D"

The first sentence tells us that there can be a conflict between long term and short term interests.

We are then told that when there is this conflict, the “morally preferable act” is usually the long term.

We then conclude (“because of this” being our indicator here) that businesses “often have compelling reasons to execute the morally preferable act.”

The very general form that we can extract from this is:
long term is morally preferable thing
therefore we have a reason to do the morally preferable thing

There is a really well hidden assumption in this argument: our premise tells us what act is morally preferable (the long term act) our conclusion then says we have reason to execute (do) the morally preferable act.

The sufficient assumption here is that we have a reason to do/execute the long term interest.

Here is my attempt at an analogous argument:
Telling the truth and lying often clash, but when they do, telling the truth is morally preferable. Therefore, we have a great reason to do the morally preferable act.
Sufficient assumption: we have a great reason to tell the truth

SA questions will do this odd/different thing once in awhile, we are basically connecting terms.

I hope this helps
David

NotMyName

Hey David. It does help. That was my approach on the section under timed conditions. It's very cookie-cutter when we see it from that intuitive/loose perspective.

I just think they used the wrong question stem here since we don't reach validity.