#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# PT21.S2.Q20 - ann will either take a leave of absense

Alum Member
edited July 2016 3788 karma
For this particular question, could someone run me through the process of why whether or not the Ann was offered the fellowship is irrelevant?

I do see how the correct answer makes the conclusion valid but I can also spot a second sufficient assumption: If ann received the offer for fellowship, then the company will not allow her to take a leave of absence. From the stimulus, we know that quitting her job means two things, that she didn't take leave of absence and that she received an offer for a fellowship. Linking this "offer" term with the sufficient condition of the assumption that I had just listed, we then know that the company will not have let her take a leave of absence. And due to the bi-conditional, we know that if she isn't allowed to take leave of absence, that means that the company will find out that she was offered a fellowship. Wouldn't this also make the conclusion valid as well? I just wanted to know if this thought process was also correct and that there are other potential sufficient assumptions for this question.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-20/

• Alum Inactive ⭐
3545 karma
Hey @westcoastbestcoast , your sufficient assumption is actually not valid given the stimulus. We have no idea under what conditions the company won't let Ann leave, we only know that there is a condition that will let her leave.

Also, I think sufficient assumption questions usually require mapping of conditional logic but I think in your case, you got lost in it (or I'm misunderstanding what you're saying). Fundamentally, the argument is making the claim that if Ann can leave, she will. That's the gap (D) bridges.
• Alum Member
3788 karma
Hi @blah170blah, I thought that the sentence that contains the condition in which the company allows Ann to leave was a bi-conditional and therefore we could get the contrapositive of the bi-conditional by negating both terms.
• Alum Member
12637 karma
Bumping so more people see!
• Member
edited July 2016 611 karma
@westcoastbestcoast said:
I thought that the sentence that contains the condition in which the company allows Ann to leave was a bi-conditional and therefore we could get the contrapositive of the bi-conditional by negating both terms.
Yes, this correct. We do know that the company won't let her leave if it finds out about the fellowship.
@westcoastbestcoast said:
I can also spot a second sufficient assumption: If ann received the offer for fellowship, then the company will not allow her to take a leave of absence.
Yes, this is fine as a sufficient assumption. This, together with the stimulus, makes the argument valid.
@westcoastbestcoast said:
I just wanted to know if this thought process was also correct and that there are other potential sufficient assumptions for this question.
For any argument, there are always infinitely many sufficient assumptions. This is trivially true. Consider the following argument: P. Therefore Q.

What could you assume to make the argument valid? Well, assuming (P → Q) would make it valid. But so would assuming (P → (P → Q)). And so would assuming (P → (P → (P → Q))). And so would assuming (P → (P → (P → (P → Q)))). And so on.

You could also assume (~P or Q), (P ↔ (~P or Q)), (P ↔ (P ↔ (~P or Q))), and so on. You could also also assume (R or ~R) → Q, ((R or ~R) → Q) → Q, and so on. You could even assume (S & ~S), (S & ~~~S), (S & ~~~~~S), and so on.

As you can see, every argument trivially has infinitely sufficient assumptions.
• Alum Member
3788 karma
Dam @quinnxzhang Thanks for the really detailed explanation. I assume you have some background in formal logic from college? haha