PT26.S3.Q23 - Whenever she considers voting in an election...

cest_la_vie

I still don't understand why "the only" in answer choice B is valid. My original prephrase was "vote for L or N -> unacceptable." B says: unacceptable -> vote for L and N. It seems that B is the exact reversal of my prephrase.

I see why it is unacceptable to vote for L or N, but how does this fact make the answer choice B correct?

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-23/

canihazJD

There are 3 courses of action: M, L, or N.

She can vote for someone who disagrees with her, if she disagrees with the others on even more issues.

So in the world in which she disagrees with a candidate (note, M is not part of this world):

disagree with the least → acceptable to vote for

and also

acceptable to vote for → disagree with the least

giving us a biconditional (acceptable to vote for ←→ disagree with the least)... you could also use "unacceptable" and disagree more or something to that effect.

Here we can just plug in the candidates and see that L and N do not see the criteria of being the candidates she agrees with the most/disagrees with the least, and M is not subject to the principle as we are given no rule about when/whether it's acceptable for her to vote for a candidate who she agrees with on all the issues important to her.

But to break it down further...

There is only one issue. M agrees with her, L and N do not.

Since she disagrees with both L and N, the only way she can vote for either of them is if she disagrees with the remaining two more... which she can't because there is only one issue. So the principle excludes L and N, while M is not subject to it.

Since the choices are limited to M, L, or N, and L and N are the only ones that are unacceptable (and M is not subject to the principle) you end up with a biconditional (U←→L or N), which is why your pre-phrase is not wrong, but neither is the AC... it's just that neither is complete.

Aside, I think this one is much more efficiently attacked by simple paraphrasing... strict conditional translation would set you up for the exact trick that got you, which we have to assume was intended.

Hope this helps... I'm a few macallans and a white claw deep, which tends to make me spaz out a bit in explanations.