PT69.S4.Q08 - to qualify as a medical specialist

Comments

• 1 Like

  ewch1992 Free Trial Member

  June 2014 31 karma

  Not incompetent does equal competent because logically, (not)competent = incompetent
• 1 Like

  David Wayne Free Trial Member

  June 2014 edited June 2014 571 karma

  Technically, incompetent does constitute a binary cut of competent, since the 'in' portion of the word is the english language's way of saying 'not' something. The same difference applies to 'incredible' versus 'credible', or 'inconceivable' versus 'conceivable'.
  
  This is different than mistakenly trying to argue that the negation of 'sour' is sweet, since the negation of sour can just as reasonably include bland, spicy, or a whole other range of tastes, so a proper contrapositive of that idea can only be expressed as 'not sour'.
• ikethelsat Alum Member

  June 2014 193 karma

  E.T. - This is a question where you might just want to use elimination to find the answer, if you are having doubts.
  
  A can be eliminated immediately because it is about motivation
  B can be eliminated because in typical LSAT trickery, they are trying to make you equate talent with medical competence, but we don't fall for that.
  D and E are both eliminated in one blow - they talk about what is 'usually' the case, and the question explicitly says that 100% of specialists are competent.
  
  If you go through that process of 'proving' out the choices, you would be left with C. I can understand your hesitation and thinking there is a grey area between competence and incompetence. But once you have eliminated the other 4, you should start to think to yourself, "actually, competence and incompetence ARE binary, it's just like capable and incapable. Either a doctor is able to do something adequately or not..." and then you circle C. And to be honest, if you can definitively eliminate 4 answers and the last one seems plausible, then circle it and move on anyway.
• CFC152436 Alum Member

  June 2014 edited June 2014 284 karma

  Why are we trying to negate incompetence? To negate a conditional, you say that some of the sufficients are not necessary. A --> B negated is A Some /B.
  
  C:
  No one incompetent to practice a particular specialty completes the evaluation program for that specialty
  In logic: Incompetent ---> /CEP
  
  Negation of C:
  It is not the case that no one incompetent to practice a particular specialty completes the evaluation program for that specialty.
  
  Rewording of negation:
  There are some people who are incompetent to practice a particular specialty and who complete the evaluation program for that specialty.
  In logic: Incompetent some CEP
  
  POE works well on this one. The assumption is pretty straightforward, though, so you should have had a pretty good idea what to look for before you started reading the answer choices. This is also a good example of how the strength of the conclusion can help you eliminate answers. Strong conclusion (all medical specialists) means you should be wary of weak answer choices (most, some, usually, probably, etc).
• 1 Like

  AlenaLSAT Alum Member

  June 2014 edited June 2014 182 karma

  Answer D is wrong since the information used in it is not used as a premise to support the conclusion. The stuff about years of medical training is just background information. The gap is between completing evaluation program and being competent, and answer choice C fills that gap.
  
  I don't think you should go into the deep meaning of words in conditional logic questions. Just look for the premise that supports the conclusion and draw a diagram.