PT60.S1.Q22 - One of the most useful social conventions

Chloe123

I am confused because the correct answer to this question seems like it's a necessary assumption and not a sufficient assumption, as the question stem would describe it to be. I generally regard necessary assumptions to be the "bare minimum" standard. It seems that "societies being geographically isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society" only allows for, and does not guarantee, the conclusion to be drawn. When I really analyze the question I guess I could see how it's sufficient, but am I crazy to think that this reads so similarly to a necessary assumption? Is there a helpful technique for distinguishing the two in a situation like this?

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-22/

Bumblebee

In a Sufficent Assumption question, it is possible for the correct AC to be both the necessary and sufficient assumption, but I'm not sure if that's the case here.

"Influence by any other society " seems sufficient rather than necessary.

If you negate the correct AC, it says something like: No society has been geographically isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society (in simpler language, it seems to mean: Every society has been influenced by another society due to geographical proximity).

I'm not sure if that destroys the argument. It seems to go over the bare minimum. For example, society A could have influenced society B in certain cultural aspects, but it's quite possible that A didn't influence B regarding the invention of money.

Answer choice A) guarantees the conclusion, but it's not necessary.

Premise: Money is universal. It is a human invention.

Sufficient Assumption: Some societies have been completely uninfluenced by others.

(If no society influenced them in any way, how do they have money? This pushes out the conclusion that they came up with money on their own.)

Conclusion: Probably the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society.

AngusMcGillis

I don't think you're crazy @CHLOESAAD5 lol but @happyLSAT is right. Assumptions can be both necessary and sufficient. In this case AC A may not be necessary for this argument. The argument's conclusion is very weak ("it seems probable") so negating A doesn't necessarily wreck it. Although the negation definitely weakens it.

Honestly the argument in this question is just bad, if anyone said this to me I'd think they have a screw lose. I think it's difficult because it has tricky language and the premises are basically red herrings (distractions from the argument). If you can keep your goal clear in your mind, B,C,D and E are easy to eliminate.

Money most useful
Money universal
Money human invention
Therefore .: Money independent is probable

What's missing: it's possible money independent, or any conditional statement that connects our P with our C

Analogous argument
Administrator Dingus: Alcohol abuse is one of our university's biggest concerns, its use is matched only by caffeine. Unlike caffeine, alcohol use is widely frowned upon and is a detriment to our reputation. Therefore the alcohol abuse in some of our faculties most likely is unconnected.

Logic Gainz

The main reason this question was difficult for me was because I misunderstood the definition of the word "universality". I thought that universality implied being apart of a vast majority of societies, but that it didn't have to be 100% of societies. I thought that money and language could be considered equally universal even if say only 95% of societies had them. However, if you check out this link: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/universality?s=t

definition #2 indicates that if something is universal, it is held by all. Every human society has language and every human society has money.

If only one community of people were isolated while 100% of societies had money, it has to be true that more than one society developed money independently. The isolated society has money (indicated by the universality of it) and the society from which the first is separated has money too. That's why A is sufficient for the conclusion which says that more than one society developed money independently. The example I just gave you indicates at least two societies developed money independently.