pt 51 sec 1 #21 MSS

chinobonito

pt 51 sec 1 #21 MSS

Hi Everyone, I was stuck on this question, and I was wondering if someone can take a look at my breakdown of this question to provide any suggestions and feedback. Thank you!

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-1-question-21/

this question is interesting, i feel like for this question, you almost don't need to map out the lawgic unless you do not fully understand the question stimulus.

i didn't really understand the second part of Jon's lawgic mapping...
The effect remains quite strong during colder months if the garden is well coordinated with the room and contributes strong visual interest of its own.

Jon wrote: CM → [WC & SVI → ES]

Why did Jon put CM as sufficient condition? Wouldn't WC & SVI → ES be enough/correct?

A. A garden separated from an adjoining living room by closed sliding doors cannot be well coordinated with the room unless the garden contributes strong visual interest.
WC → SVI

Not right because WC & SVI goes together, they're not sufficient and necessary conditions.

B. in cold weather, a garden and an adjoining living room separated from one another by sliding glass doors will not visually merge into a single space unless the garden is well coordinated with the room.

SD → M → WC

This is incorrect because q stem doesn't state that it'll merge because it's well coordinated. it just says that the effect remains strong if it's well coordinated.

C. A garden and an adjoining living room separated by sliding glass doors cannot visually merge in summer unless the doors are open.

M → SD

But first sentence states that SD → M, so this is backwards, so incorrect

D. a garden can visually merge with an adjoining living room into a single space even if the garden does not contribute strong visual interest of its own

correct because the only thing that will allow it to merge is the sliding doors. visual interest just makes the effect stronger

E. Except in summer.... this is just not a good start...incorrect

How do you approach MSS questions? Sometimes, I feel like lawgic isn't necessary, as long as i understand fully what the question is saying. Sometimes, lawgic is necessary... I think LSAT is difficult because the test is dense and may lose me and I may miss one or two words, or get confused because of it's wording... what are your thoughts?

kendallM

A and B eliminated because visualization and coordination are not sufficient necessary relationship (one doesn't need to happen for the other to exisit).

C eliminated because the opening of second sentence tells us "if the sliding doors are open, as it MAY happen during summer," this doesn't mean the doors have to always be open during summer in order for the garden and living room to merge. In fact, the first sentence tells us ANY garden and living room can merge (closed or open). It just that the effect and intesification that makes it a difference when the door is open.

E eliminate (I had a hard time with this one). But the problem here is that it's implying cold month situation but we don't really know about doors open during cold months so that's why I didn't like this one. It also suggesting that only summer can intesify but we don't know if that's a must be true (you need to approach soft much be true same as must be true. I know some companies say differently but that's how I learned it).

D correct because the first sentence tells us any garden can be merged with living room. We just know the effect remains strong during cold months if the coordination is there.

Jonathan Wang

CM is a sufficient condition because the rest of the sentence is only applicable if it's a cold month. During the cold months, "X" happens. What's "X"? Well, "X" says that if the garden is well coordinates and contributes strong visual interest, then the effect remains strong. We only even get to ask about that stuff if it's a cold month to begin with. If it's a warm month, we don't know the relationship between WC SVI and ES, at least not solely based on this one statement.

It's like saying "During a snowstorm, if you climb this mountain, a yeti will eat you." If we know a snowstorm is occurring, we know that the climbing/yeti relationship is true. But the only way you even get to ask about the substance of mountain climbing and getting eaten by a yeti is if you know a snowstorm happened.

"You don't need to map it out unless you don't understand it" is precisely how every conditional logic question works - the whole reason you'd map anything is so that you can clarify what was previously fuzzy. If you can hold all the information in your head and can have crystal clarity without writing a single word down, then more power to you. But don't confuse that for not needing to hash out the information in the first place.

Hope this helps.