PT52.S1.Q22 - moralist: a statement is wholly

Lsatbreakingnews

I found this comment posted on the PT explanation page And I was wondering if anyone could answer what this person has to say because I'm in the same exact position as this them. If you could watch the pt explanation video or look at the question than look at the copied and pasted comment below: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-22/ (Explanation link)

linmat09
I have no issue identifying what part of an answer choice is a conclusion and which part(s) is/are a premise. However, I’m not always sure how to translate a prem or conclusion into which is necessary and which is sufficient.

For ex., we only have the necessary conditions for something that is wholly truthful. BUT when I read A, (and for the sake of this question lets assume that he was actually abducted so that it meets the “true” component of the necessary), I can’t tell what becomes sufficient and necessary.

So assuming it really was true and it wasn’t intended to deceive, how do I know that these are sufficient and not necessary IN the answer choice?

Is there really a way at all to conclude something in an answer choice THAT IS GIVEN TO US AS A SUFFICIENT in the stim? I could only think of something like “The only wholly truthful statement ted made to the investigator was true and he was not trying to deceive the investigator….”

But clearly, that doesn’t make very much sense. lol

OR, could they give you an answer choice that said something like “Ted made a wholly truthful statement, therefore, his claim about (and go off on a long confusing description) was both truthful and made without the intention to deceive”

beth.flanders

I'm not sure if i understand exactly what the question is but in my opinion I don't believe you need to determine sufficiency and necessary from the answer choice but instead look for what can be concluded (the judgments) given by the premises (principles) from the stimuli.

Perhaps this may help:

From the stimuli we are told that for a "statement" to be a whole truth statement it requires that the "statement" is both true AND without intended deception. Changing the stimuli statement to lawgic we have WT -> T & /ID. So the question is what can be concluded from this principle to make a valid argument (P(remise) -> C(onclusion).

From answer choice A we are told that Ted's statement is wholly truthful (the conclusion) and we are also told that Ted was not trying to deceive the investigator (the premise). So P(remise) -> C(onclusion) would result in /ID -> WT which is not a valid conclusion that can be drawn according to the stimuli.

In English rather than lawgic, my thought process is that to be able to conclude what constitutes a wholly truthful statement, the statement must be both true and made without deception. Compare this with answer choice A which tells me that Ted's statement is wholly truthful because its made without deception. But the answer choice is missing the other requirement of being "true". Because Ted's statement fails to meet both necessary conditions provided by the stimulus then it cannot be concluded that Ted's statement is "wholly truthful".