Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT41.S1.Q12 - Poor nutrition is at the root of the violent behavior...
spittingnickels
Live Member
(spoiler alert if you havent taken PT41) :
its the question that begins with "poor nutrition is at the root....."
the logic in the argument seems to me to look like "high nutrient diet ---> improved behavior ".........but the credited response was answer choice E which states " ~high nutrient diet-----> ~improved behavior"
intuitively, this answer choice feels correct, but wouldnt this be whats called "denial of the antecedent"?? other books call it illegal negation or denying the sufficient condition, but the point i guess is that its logically invalid. and yet that invalid logical structure is present in the correct answer choice for this question. Can someone explain that to me? thank you
Explanation Video: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-14/
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."