Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 2 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
PT31.S2.Q21 - band deposits credited on date of transaction
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-21/
This is a parallel flaw question.
Original flaw logic structure:
P1: Bank deposited credited on the same date if it is before 3 pm
P2: Alicia knows the deposit before 3 pm
C: Alicia knows the the bank deposit is dated on the same date
To simplify:
P1: A leads to B
P2: someone knows A
C: someone also knows B
Flaw: need a sufficient assumption to cover that gap, someone also knows that A leads to B.
Answer choices:
C. G knows he will be promoted, because G will be promoted if H resigns and G knows H resigns.
(Perfect. It is unclear if G knows he will be promoted if H resigns)
E. P wants to become a social worker. It is well-known social workers are poorly paid thus Pat apparently want to be poorly paid.
(It is unclear if P knows being a social worker will lead to poorly paid)
Or is it because it is asking for similar logic structure, there is a difference between "know" and "want".
This is a parallel flaw question.
Original flaw logic structure:
P1: Bank deposited credited on the same date if it is before 3 pm
P2: Alicia knows the deposit before 3 pm
C: Alicia knows the the bank deposit is dated on the same date
To simplify:
P1: A leads to B
P2: someone knows A
C: someone also knows B
Flaw: need a sufficient assumption to cover that gap, someone also knows that A leads to B.
Answer choices:
C. G knows he will be promoted, because G will be promoted if H resigns and G knows H resigns.
(Perfect. It is unclear if G knows he will be promoted if H resigns)
E. P wants to become a social worker. It is well-known social workers are poorly paid thus Pat apparently want to be poorly paid.
(It is unclear if P knows being a social worker will lead to poorly paid)
Or is it because it is asking for similar logic structure, there is a difference between "know" and "want".
Comments
"IF it is before 3pm, bank deposited credited on the same date."
The flaw in this stimulus is that Alicia "knowing" is NOT the same thing as "it is."
The sufficient condition that triggers the bank deposit being credited is if it ACTUALLY is.
Knowing has nothing to do with it.
So most parallel flaw is C.
Just because G knows that H resigns, does it mean that he/she will get promoted?
And no, well-known is NOT a conditional indicator.
I just double checked on the stimulus and the answer. The stimulus says:" Bank deposits are credited on the date of transaction only when they are made before 3 pm". That translates into if Bank deposits are credited on the same date---> they are made before 3 pm. I still think the flaw is that its unclear whether or Alicia knows about this condition statement. I chose answer E initially and the correct answer is C. The only explanation I came up with why E is wrong is because even though well-known means very possibly Pat knows thus wants to be poorly paid? (very far-fetching)
The condition given and the premise do not match.
E just.. doesn't even parallel.