Subscription pricing
Hey fellow 7Sagers,
I'm having some trouble understanding this question.
Here is how I diagrammed it:
CR ----->/LW
SRO---->LW
(and then I diagrammed the last premise)
L (--S--)CR
SRO -----> /L
I hooked them up by taking the contrapositive of the first premise: SRO ------> LW -------> /CR (--S--)/L
But ultimately, I wasn't able to find the right answer. And JY says that we're supposed to disregard the last premise—Some lawyers are not cattle ranchers L(--S--)CR. How am I supposed to know that I should completely ignore this premise and why? This was the sentence that kept me from getting this question right! I need someone to clarify this concept, please!
Cheers!
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-02/
0
1 comments
I wrote it out this way (which is the same thing that you wrote, but just the contrapositive)
L ←s→ CR → /LW → /SRO
L → /SRO
The “some” statement is seen as irrelevant because it doesn’t do anything to guarantee the conclusion to follow.
If you have
X ←s→ Y → Z
Can you conclude X → Z? No, because there’s no way a “some” statement can conclude an “all” statement. This is why answer choices A and B are wrong, because if you add a “some” statement to this, it doesn’t do anything to allow the conclusion to follow.
Answer Choice D just says /LW → CR, which also doesn’t allow the conclusion to follow because it’s not linking L to /SRO in any way.
And answer choice E is irrelevant because it says, “increasing profits → SRO”. This doesn’t link L to /SRO either.
When I did this, I didn’t disregard L ←s→ CR. I still wrote it out and recognized that in order for the conclusion to follow, I needed the relationship between L and CR to be stronger than a “some” statement and that’s exactly what answer choice C did.
Hope this helps!