PT74.S4.Q25 - Of the citizens who disapprove of the prime minister's

Bianca1234-1

Can someone explain this to me? This is a pfmr question but the answer looks like a contrapositive based on JY's explanation. For some reason I can't seem to understand why this is flawed and the comments don't have any additional help. Thanks.

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-25/

Bianca1234-1

bump

jc152705

Luckily I just finished this PT... was about to enter my answers.. and saw your comment!

1. Most disapprove of PM --> support for ^tax
2. T likes ^tax ---> T approves of PM.

the argument, I think, flips and negates 1. I got this one right, and did so by reading it the way I just described.

I hope this helps!

jc152705

Most support logging --> think ↓ fire
A doesn't think ↓ fire --> A doesn't support logging

Bianca1234-1

@jc152705 said:
Luckily I just finished this PT... was about to enter my answers.. and saw your comment!

1. Most disapprove of PM --> support for ^tax
2. T likes ^tax ---> T approves of PM.

the argument, I think, flips and negates 1. I got this one right, and did so by reading it the way I just described.

I hope this helps!

I'm afraid I still don't understand why the contrapositive is considered wrong

Do you mean it does something like:

1. !a --> b
2. b --> a

Bianca1234-1

@jc152705 said:
Most support logging --> think ↓ fire
A doesn't think ↓ fire --> A doesn't support logging

but why is this a flaw. What you described is the contrapositive. Please someone help me this is really freaking me out for the test saturday. I've never encountered a question that I legit don't understand except this one.

Logic Gainz

Hi @Bianca1234, I think the first thing to do is understand the meaning of "most". Lets say we have a room of 100 citizens and they all disapprove of the prime minister's performance, we thus have the scenario described in the stimulus above.

Now lets incorporate the rest of the stimulus. We're told that most of these citizens disapprove because they disagree with the increased taxes. The word, "most", indicates at least 51 people disapprove for this reason, but it doesn't have to be the case that all of his dissenters disapprove of his performance for this reason. Maybe 80 people disapprove for his support for tax increases, but the remaining 20 people disapprove for other reasons like his immigration policy. Just because some of these 20 people disapprove of his overall performance doesn't mean they do so because of his tax increase support. They could even support the tax increase.

That's what the flaw here is. Theresa could hate the guy, but it's not because of his stance on income taxes given the window, "most" provides.

dogmadaddy

You can't contrapose a "most" statement. That is the flaw. If I say:

Most children play video games. John doesn't play video games, therefore he is probably not a child.

It is not easy to see why it is flawed at first but what if I tell you that everyone that is not a child plays video games. Then it is clear that the conclusion does not follow. In this scenario IT MUST BE THE CASE that he is a child. This is why the argument in the stim is flawed. One cannot logically conclude that he is probably not a child from the the premises.

markwood43

PT74.S4.Q25, analyzing the perspective of citizens who disapprove of the prime minister offers insight into diverse public sentiments. It underscores the complexity of governance and the importance of addressing dissenting views to foster a more inclusive and responsive leadership approach for effective democratic governance.