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
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 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
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Mistaken Reversal versus Mistaken Negation
Ashley2018-1
Alum Member
Aren't the two logical equivalents? Mistaken Reversal is "confusing Necessary for Sufficient" while it's the other way around for Mistaken Negation. If the answer choice states "confusing Sufficient for Necessary" and the premise contains a mistaken reversal, is that still the correct choice? This has been bothering me a lot.
Comments
Edit: ill just link the post instead.
https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?p=25134&sid=cdf4058fe906b06db32519e2fb83f1c6#p25134
I'd also add that technically a mistaken negation (given A→B) is anything that isnt A←some→/B.
No, I get that but in the question I was doing, it had R--->C in the premises and it concluded C--->R. I thought that was a Mistaken Reversal, or a conflation of necessary with sufficient but the correct answer choice had confusing sufficient with necessary, so I was wondering if that meant MR and Mistaken Negation were logical equivalents and therefore the same.
The question I am referring to is from PT22.S2.Q25.
Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/
Thanks
I was also attracted to answer choice D; I read the thread and the consensus appears to be that it wasn't describing a flaw at all. Is the conclusion about two beliefs rather than one?