It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Hi. I'm not sure how to translate "those in search of jobs should move to a city with high-tech businesses" into lawgic. I thought the word "should" might be a necessary condition, but JY didn't put an arrow to connect JOBS and HIGH TECH. Whereas in Manhattan forum, one of the instructors translated it as "if you want JOBS, go to HT" which would require the use of an arrow. So I'm not sure which is the right approach to take..
Also, is it even a valid argument?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-25/
Comments
Hi!
I kind of disagree with Manhattan. I don’t think this is a valid argument, and surprisingly that is okay here. Our job is to parallel the reasoning. It doesn’t matter whether that reasoning is valid or not because it is not specified; we just have to parallel it.
My interpretation is as follows.
HTB (likely arrow) HE (likely arrow) PJO.
HTB (likely arrow) J
We can substitute the likely arrow for a most arrow here (and vice versa); they essentially mean the same thing because you are basically saying A (most of the time) B. If we assume this relationship, it is not valid. But that doesn’t matter because all we have to do is match the two arguments.
To answer your question more explicitly, HTB (likely arrow) J is my interpretation of the conclusion. If it is likely that you will get a job, then if you are in search of job, you should do it. The should part is implied.
But don’t get so caught up in the minutia. We are trying to parallel this argument; we don’t need to translate it. If we link up the premises and then conclude that the initial link should lead to the heart of the last link, we can still get this right. Sometimes, I can’t translate everything, but I don’t let it slow me down because I know what I am trying to do, which is to just find the mirror of this argument. It can hurt us if we aren’t flexible with our understanding.
Hope this helps!