PT63.S1.Q05 - an employee of our company must be impartial

dl_gleasondl_gleason Alum Member
edited January 2016 in General 4 karma
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-05/
I've been having trouble writing the logic out for this. I don't know why I can't make it come together. Can someone help me out?

How does that translate into the logic argument form?

Comments

  • inactiveinactive Alum Member
    12637 karma
    Please don't post the content of the questions!
    http://7sage.com/forums/categories/forum-rules
  • inactiveinactive Alum Member
    12637 karma
    Bumping this question! Any ideas, 7Sagers?
  • devin.balutdevin.balut Free Trial Member
    77 karma
    This is a bit tricky for the same reason a lot of these 'find the missing link' questions are. That is because they seem like they make sense already. Try to remember though that LSAC is god, and whatever they state as fact is fact, and that in most cases only what they tell you explicitly can be taken for granted.

    I'm not sure if this is allowed so if it isn't please edit out this comment, but I'm going to try and make a question that follows similar logic.

    Architect: The design of an Art Deco building should always show a holistic blend of traditional craft motifs and industrial imagery. Thus support pillars for such buildings should be mixed with some traditional and some industrial pillars because past pillars have been made in both styles that inspire Art Deco.

    That's not a perfectly similar example, but hopefully the logic in it will be close enough to be helpful.

    So basically we have the concept (word of god) that Art Deco buildings should show a holistic blend of x and y. Then we have another statement that seems to follow that goes like 'some particular aspect of the building needs to be both something like x and something like y'.

    Now two important considerations:
    1) x and y don't exactly match the original x and y. (In your question there is only x but same idea)
    2) Putting half x and half y doesn't necessarily make a holistic blend of styles x and y.

    So we need something that links the premise and the conclusion since the conclusion isn't fully supported.

    A good bridge (heheh) would be:
    "In the selection of pillars for Art Deco buildings a mixture of industrial and traditional styles helps to create a holistic blend of craft motifs and industrial imagery."

    Again it's not a perfect comparison but the idea is that just because you shoved the two styles together doesn't mean that it surely holistically blend. You need another statement to equate the two, or you'll always be left wondering... Will It Blend?
Sign In or Register to comment.