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

- 29.8K All Categories
- 25.3K LSAT
- 15.7K General
- 26 Sage Advice
- 4.5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.2K Reading Comprehension
- 1.6K Logic Games
- 65 Podcasts
- 186 Webinars
- 5 Scholarships
- 189 Test Center Reviews
- 1.7K Study Groups
- 98 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.2K Specific LSAT Dates
- 10 June 2023 LSAT
- 3 April 2023 LSAT
- 9 February 2023 LSAT
- 25 January 2023 LSAT
- 4.5K Not LSAT
- 3.7K Law School Admissions
- 8 Law School Explained
- 11 Forum Rules
- 501 Technical Problems
- 265 Off-topic

westcoastbestcoast
Alum Member

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/

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/

## Comments

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.

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.