I have an odd Logical Indicator question

Comments

• Ohnoeshalpme Alum Member ⭐

  May 2018 edited May 2018 2531 karma

  Our two ideas are: "save the environment" and "national government". Must introduces a necessary condition so we are left with:

  "If you are a national government --> you save the environment"

  I'm not sure why you think that the correct translation is the reversed one.

  What you've written above - "If save the environment then you are a national government" is nonsensical. Your interpretation implies that national governments are the only ones that can save the environment. Certainly if I walk out into my backyard and magically save the environment I am not suddenly a government.The sentence actually implies that it is a duty of the national government to save the environment.
• Cofife88 Member

  May 2018 edited May 2018 90 karma

  From my understanding of it, the phrase is saying that if the environment is to be saved, the national government must save it. The government is not necessarily saving the environment. If the environment has been saved, and, thus, the sufficient condition is triggered, then the national government must have saved it. So this would translate to:

  The environment is saved —> The national government must have saved it

  Under this analysis, the contrapositive would suggest that:

  If the government did not save the environment—> the environment has not been saved

  This contrapostive would suggest that it is not possible for any other group to save the environment except the national government

  Hopefully my answer helps! Sorry it was a little drawn out. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or if I’m mistaken in my interpretation
• keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  May 2018 6050 karma

  My understanding is the same as Cofife. I think the key is in the grammar.

  "It is the national government that must save the environment"

  "It" at the beginning of the statement refers to saving the environment. What about saving the environment? Well the national government is the one to do it.

  So if the environment is saved then we know it must have been the national government that did it. This is different than saying that "the national government did it" implying that saving the environment.

  In lawgic it would be like this:
  SE -> NG
  /NG -> /SE

  If the national government did not do it, then the environment will not be saved. I hate the other "it" because it also alludes to the idea of saving the environment. Grammar. Bah.
• AudaciousRed Alum Member

  May 2018 2689 karma

  "It is the national government that must..." Must indicates Necessary. So, the National Government becomes the necessary condition.

  "...save the environment" is then the Sufficient.

  That's how I read it, anyway It's a tricky worded phrase.
• _oshun1_ Alum Member

  May 2018 edited May 2018 3652 karma

  It is the national government that must save the environment.
  Can be read as: the national government is required to save the environment.
  In order to save the environment, the national government is necessary.
  Just replace must with “is necessary,” and ask —what is necessary? The national government.
• Henry An Alum Member

  May 2018 123 karma

  Thank you everyone with the comments! It all helped greatly
• brigitte Free Trial Member

  May 2018 432 karma

  @Cofife88 said:
  From my understanding of it, the phrase is saying that if the environment is to be saved, the national government must save it. The government is not necessarily saving the environment. If the environment has been saved, and, thus, the sufficient condition is triggered, then the national government must have saved it. So this would translate to:

  The environment is saved —> The national government must have saved it

  Under this analysis, the contrapositive would suggest that:

  If the government did not save the environment—> the environment has not been saved

  This contrapostive would suggest that it is not possible for any other group to save the environment except the national government

  Hopefully my answer helps! Sorry it was a little drawn out. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or if I’m mistaken in my interpretation

  Is this from a real LSAT problem? If so can you please share which one. Thanks