PT29.S1.Q18 and PT2.S2.Q24 - Help!!! Logic Contradictions

Oriental DreamerOriental Dreamer Member
edited October 2022 in Logical Reasoning 21 karma

Hi, can any LR guru help take a look at the two following LR questions?

PT29 1-18 PT2 2-24

Details:
PT29 1-18: Most of artists are less insightfull than those educated.
Correct Must Be True answer E : Some of artists are no less insightgul than those educated

PT2 2-24: Many planning committee members work in suburbs
Wrong Must Be True answer D : Some planning committee members do not work in the suburbs

Basically: PT29 1-18 is saying that "Most excludes All". However, PT2 2-24 is saying that "Some does not exclude All"

Which one shall I remember? I am just sooooooo confused!

Thank you guys!!!

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-18/

Comments

  • grugthesluggrugtheslug Member
    107 karma

    Hey, had a look for you - there are no logic contradictions the way I did them, but really weird one on the PT2.

    PT29 S1 Q18
    My logic was:

    _[Planning Committee Members who RepresentConstructionIndustry] -> [Significant Financial Interest]

    [Live in Suburbs] -> [Not a Planning Committee Member]_

    Connect the two, and it becomes clear that:

    NOT[Live in Suburbs] <-s-> [Significant Financial Interest]
    I didn't actually find a some or most relationship here.

    PT2 S2 Q24_

    _Artist -most-> Less Politically Insightful than Reasonably Well-educated Non-Artist_s

    I don't actually know why the correct answer is that some artists are NOT Less Politically Insightful than Reasonably Well-educated Non-Artists, because most absolutely can include all.

    Hopefully someone else can hop in here for this one.

  • grugthesluggrugtheslug Member
    107 karma

    Sorry, to clarify for the Q18, I connected them by taking the contrapositive of [Live in Suburbs] -> [Not a Planning Committee Member], and noticed that Planning Committee Member was the same term. The some relationship was found with one of the valid argument forms

    A->B
    A->C

    B some C

  • claremontclaremont Core Member
    edited October 2022 590 karma

    It took me a second to realize what you were trying to ask. You mislabelled your explanations, i.e., your explanation for PT29 you mislabelled as PT2 and vice versa. You might want to edit that so other people can more easily chime in.

    For PT29, you're correct, some does not exclude all and that is the correct logic.

    For PT2, this is an older LSAT and older LSATs do tend to have a reputation for being less rigorous with their wording. Are any of the ACs here 100% valid? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. If this question were written today I suspect it would've been labelled a MSS.

    Anyway, to get to the argument. I don't think it is saying that "Most excludes All." The crux of the argument is with the last premise, "artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together." I think the "rarely" here implies that it is "sometimes found together." Which is where we get our support for ACE. Again, I don't think this is 100% supported because we are making an assumption, but I think it's a fairly reasonable one to make given the language used in the stimulus, i.e., if they didn't intend for it to be a range from 1-100 they would've used stronger language, e.g., "artistic talent and political insight are NEVER found together." Again, it's an early PT. That's my analysis; I could be mistaken.

Sign In or Register to comment.