#### Howdy, Stranger!

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

# PT29.S4.Q12 - editorialist: drivers with a large

Alum Member
edited August 2016 392 karma
Can anyone show me their diagram of this question?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-12/

• Alum Member
426 karma
Let me try it in a simpler format

P1: X --> A or B
P2: not(X --> A or --> crimes go unpunished
[you have probably noticed it but P2 part happens to be irrelevant]
P3: B --> C
P4: We can't do C, so /B

Most strongly supported, thus X --> A
• Alum Member
edited July 2017 330 karma

How are we supposed to know in this case that A is "good enough"

By saying "drivers....should be sent to jail," the statement is interpreted as /all/ "drivers....should be sent to jail," when the passage clearly states that it's "/almost/ impossible" for the circumstances that wouldn't lead to jailing to happen.

I don't see this as a case of "good enough" support; I'm struggling to understand why this isn't deliberately wrong.

Take this parallel argument:

1) Dogs with long hair should be either shampooed or shaved.

2) Only if such dogs are capable of blocking UV rays with their skin should they be shaved.

3) Unfortunately, it's almost impossible for long haired dogs to block UV rays with their skin.

4) ALL long haired dogs should be shampooed.

1) Long Hair (L) ------> either Shampoo (P) or Shave (V)

2) (V) -------> Can Block UV (B)

3) Some (S) ------> (B)

How can you get to 4) (L) -----> (P) from the formal logic above? And, more importantly, how do you know when this kind of lukewarm logic is okay, and when the aforementioned differences are important?

edit: so my guess is that the formal logic translation of step 3 will be criticized, but if so, I ask you how one can concretely know the other way is correct? I don't see "almost impossible" popping up on the LSAT as a term with an iron clad logical equivalent, and I think my interpretation is just as valid as any other given the lack of precedence for the phrasing.

• Alum Member
392 karma

@AJordanMD said:
How are we supposed to know in this case that A is "good enough"

By saying "drivers....should be sent to jail," the statement is interpreted as /all/ "drivers....should be sent to jail," when the passage clearly states that it's "/almost/ impossible" for the circumstances that wouldn't lead to jailing to happen.

I don't see this as a case of "good enough" support; I'm struggling to understand why this isn't deliberately wrong.

Take this parallel argument:

1) Dogs with long hair should be either shampooed or shaved.

2) Only if such dogs are capable of blocking UV rays with their skin should they be shaved.

3) Unfortunately, it's almost impossible for long haired dogs to block UV rays with their skin.

4) ALL long haired dogs should be shampooed.

1) Long Hair (L) ------> either Shampoo (P) or Shave (V)

2) (V) -------> Can Block UV (B)

3) Some (S) ------> (B)

How can you get to 4) (L) -----> (P) from the formal logic above? And, more importantly, how do you know when this kind of lukewarm logic is okay, and when the aforementioned differences are important?

edit: so my guess is that the formal logic translation of step 3 will be criticized, but if so, I ask you how one can concretely know the other way is correct? I don't see "almost impossible" popping up on the LSAT as a term with an iron clad logical equivalent, and I think my interpretation is just as valid as any other given the lack of precedence for the phrasing.

Hi Jordon I looked at this question again, remember this is an MSS question, so four answers will have definitive and clear reasons for elimination. The right answer just has to be MSS by the text and need not follow with 100% certainty. So if you didn't get the answer by seeing a right answer, you should have eliminated 4 wrong answers.

In this question LDP + SDO -> Sent to jail or Drivers education -> Drivers ed leads to more responsible driver

However another statement tells us that persons with a large amount of demerit point (LDP) are unlikely to be made into more responsible drivers so that eliminates drivers education and means that we should send them to jail since that is the other option.