#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# PT83.S1.Q18 - Contesting Standard committee lawgic

Alum Member
edited October 2021 211 karma

I'm disagreeing with how JY did this because we can't use common sense in MBT nor make up assumptions because we think it makes sense to us. MSS is fine because it's always a 95% certainty and 5% wiggle room for some common sense.

That is invalid because what is a valid argument and what is a sound argument are two different things. In MBT we are focusing if it is valid not if it is sound but JY isn't doing that

His argument goes in the lawgic

Standard committee ---> 6 PM
General assembly ----> 7 pm

6 isn't 7

so 6 ----> /7

Which he gets

SQ ----> 6 ---> /7 ----> /General assembly

The problem is that is not a valid argument. We can't negate assumptions since we are removing alot of presumptions.

I KNOW that 6 isn't 7, but thats not the controversy. The controversy is aligning an assumption against another assumption through negation, which that's not a valid argument.

For all we know in sound arguments, 6 is 7, or 6 does not necessarily contradict 7 (or vice versa)

Why not? Because what if it lasts 5 minutes the assembly. What if the coordinators are so stupid that they do it at the same time. Not common sense but still valid.

Parallel flaw example:

Juan likes tacos

Jake likes cars

Tacos aren’t cars

Therefore Juan —> /Jake

=====================

The lawgic

Juan –> tacos

Jake —> Cars

tacos—-> /cars

Therefore Juan —> Jake

Explanation Video: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-18/

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

• Alum Member
211 karma

Juan --> /jake

• Monthly Member
edited October 2021 26 karma

There are two conditional statements, each of which have contrapositives so I will write the four statements here.

sc has quorum --> ga will begin at 6
ga does not begin at 6 --> sc does not have quorum

ac has quorum --> ga will begin at 7
ga will not begin at 7 --> ac does not have quorum

we can combine these statements:
if the ga begins at 7 that means it does not begin at 6, and according to the contrapositive:
ga does not begin at 6 ---> sc does not have quorum; therefore, if the ga begins at 7 then sc does not have quorum

also, if ga begins at 6 then it does not begin at 7, and according to the second contrapositive, if the ga does not begin at 7 then ac does not have quorum; therefore, if the ga begins at 6 then ac does not have quorum.

This is what AC E says so E is correct.

• Alum Member
125 karma

The argument you give as a parallel example isn't really the same but there is definitely a weird assumption that the General Assembly can't begin twice, once at 6 and again at 7. I remember getting this right and not overthinking that detail at the time, but I don't see any reason for that being guaranteed by the prompt now.
However, E is the only answer choice that makes any sense at all. The rest don't follow logically from anything the prompt says at all.
Maybe the word "begin" implies a single occurrence. Maybe things don't begin twice? They "begin" and later they "resume." If that's true, then 6 implies (not7) and 7 implies (not6), (not6) implies (notStandardsQuorum) and (not7) implies (notAwardsQuorum), so E is logically valid.

• Monthly Member
edited October 2021 350 karma

If the standards committee has a quorom, then the general assembly will begin at 6:00 pm today. If the awards committee has a quorom, then the general assembly will begin at 7:00 today

It's reasonable to assume the GA can't "begin" at both 6pm and 7pm.

Why not? Because what if it lasts 5 minutes the assembly.

I'm guessing that by "what if it lasts 5 minutes the assembly" you mean "couldn't there be two 5 minute assemblies - one at 6 and one at 7?"

That doesn't work because the argument says "the" general assembly, not "a" general assembly. This implies there is only one, and why would one meeting start at two times?

What if the coordinators are so stupid that they do it at the same time. Not common sense but still valid.

The stimulus says,

If the standards committee has a quorom, then the general assembly will begin at 6:00 pm today.

If the stimulus had said, "If the standards committee has a quorom, then by the coordinators schedule the general assembly will begin at 6:00 pm today," this might work. However, the stimulus just says "if quorom, then general assembly at 6".

You have to accept statements in the stimulus as facts.

Another reason this is correct is because, as other posters have said, no other answer makes sense.

For all we know in sound arguments, 6 is 7, or 6 does not necessarily contradict 7 (or vice versa)

Soundness is when an argument is logically valid and factually true.

• Alum Member
edited October 2021 211 karma

The

The can be used for plural and for singular use. It would be quite haughty for LSAT to use it for this one case out of thousands, especially when it is vague for a MBT

You have to accept statements in the stimulus as facts.

I am accepting the premises. We can't make assumptions on what they think they say, just on what they literally said. The only time we can do that comes from resulting from the actions of the premises.

I never got a valid response on why it's 5 minutes one then the other can't

Another reason this is correct is because, as other posters have said, no other answer makes sense.

That's because hindsight is 20/20. How are students supposed to know that when they remove it all. It's fine if it was a MSS but not when it's a MBT because it needs to be 100% true from the stimulus alone.

Soundness is when an argument is logically valid and factually true.

Right but we aren't worried about if it is sound. That was the issue I get because the video says it's "common sense" for us to assume it. I wondering if it's valid

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

• Alum Member
edited October 2021 40 karma

I don't understand how you're interpreting "the general assembly" to denote 2 events. Can you explain that part specifically?

Also, I said this in another comment, but your analogy with the tacos and cars cannot be properly established because of relevant differences in the circumstances.

• Monthly Member
edited October 2021 350 karma

If the standards committee has a quorom, then the general assembly will begin at 6:00 pm today. If the awards committee has a quorom, then the general assembly will begin at 7:00 today.

The diagramming from your first post (not sure if yours or JY’s, haven’t seen the video) is not correct.

Standard committee ---> 6 PM
General assembly ----> 7 pm
6 isn't 7
so 6 ----> /7
Which he gets
SQ ----> 6 ---> /7 ----> > >/General assembly

You should have diagrammed it as:

Standard committee -> GA time 6

Awards committee -> GA time 7

The conclusion is that both can’t have quoroms, because the general assembly can’t start at both 6 and 7.

We do bring a bit of factual knowledge into the lsat. We assume that 6 and 7 are times, and we know that two times can’t happen at the same time.

Review any lsat question you got right and you will see there is a bit of “common sense” assumption there.