PT22.S4.Q21 - terry: some actions considered to be bad

Spencer D

I got this question correct but really don't know why. I look at the answers and they just look like gibberish. I try to break the words down and make the answer sound similar, but I still have no clue what most those answers are saying. I went through the lessons on weakening questions but it didn't seem to help for this type of super wordy question at all. Anyone else struggle with the real wordy weaken questions? Any tips or advice?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-21/

Sami

Hi : )

So I think it helps to break down each argument first, which I think you already did correctly if you got the answer choice correct but just for efficiency:

Terry:
1st Sentence: bad actions <--some--> fav. conseq
2nd Sentence: good action-----> fav. conseq
Conclusion: bad actions <--some--> good actions
* what's the flaw?
if we put the the two sentences together this is what we get:
Combined conditional statement: good action-->fav. conseq <--some---> bad actions
Can we conclude anything from this conditional statement?
Nope. But the author did. He thought "bad actions <--some--> good actions"
I like to ask myself here, "what change would I need to occur in our combined statement for me to make the authors conclusion valid? ".
I could conclude "some bad actions are good" if my combined conditional statement read as follows:
bad actions <--some--> fav consquence ---> good actions
this will allow me to conclude "some bad actions are good" and agree with the author.
So know that we know what I had to change to make the authors conclusion valid: He thought
"good action --> fav. consequence" is equal to "fav. consequence --> good action"
This is our classic fallacy of mistaking sufficiency for necessary flaw

I am not going to diagram Pat's argument because he basically makes the exact same fallacy

So lets take a look at answer choices:

A). This one is talking about a property distinguishing something:
(for example apple is different from orange because it has the property of being red.)
This answer choice then reads on to say, then that property is one of many properties that distinguishes the two things. For example, red is not the only thing that's different about oranges and apples that sets that apart. (yes, and its probably true for others, but that's not our flaw)

. This answer choice is saying that if most things in a group have a certain property then all things in that group have that property. For example: most tables are black, therefore all tables are black. This is a fallacy but its not the one we are looking for.

C). This answer choice is talking about if a certain property is shared by a group in certain society then that property is shared by actions in every society. For example in lets say "Canada": all legal actions are moral Therefore in every society lets say including North Korea, all legal actions are moral. This is a part to whole fallacy (if one society has that all societies have that) and not the mistaken necessary for sufficiency fallacy we are looking for.

D) This answer choice is saying if a property is necessary for an action then it is sufficient for that action. For example: all apples are red therefore all red things are apples. Bingo! this is the fallacy we are looking for!!!!!! (I just want to say I know the answer choices say the word "action" and not "groups" in the case i chose like apples, but sometimes its easier to see the fallacy in its logical forms if you can see actions as just another word for describing a group of variable).

E) This answer choice is saying if two actions share a certain property, then that is the only property distinguishing the two types of actions from others. For example: both legal and good actions are moral. Then the only difference between legal and moral actions and other actions, such as illegal or unkind action, is that or morality. No, there could be other things that are different too, for example the other two are also good for society and the rest are not. Being moral is not the ONLY distinguishing factor.

* I think what you probably did here was correct and efficient. I am guessing you saw the sufficient and necesary fallacy in the stimulus and answer choice "D" was the only thing that stated that word so you picked it. I would just make sure to read such an answer choice carefully in future, just to make sure it is saying exactly that fallacy and not saying something else by using the word we are looking for, in this case "necessary".
* Also, after you verify that answer choice "D" is saying the fallacy you were looking for I would move on, and not try to understand during a live PT what each answer choice is saying. I did that under time for this question. This is because trying to understand each answer choice is going to suck up time as these sentences are written in a very convoluted manner. It's good for BR and maybe at the end of the section when you have time to come back. But not when you have maybe 5 more questions to do.

I hope this helped : )