LSAT 139 – Section 4 – Question 21

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 21

June 2013

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:18

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT139 S4 Q21	+LR	Sufficient assumption +SA Conditional Reasoning +CondR Link Assumption +LinkA Kick It Up +KIU	A 53% 168 B 6% 157 C 4% 159 D 30% 163 E 7% 157	156 164 171	+Hardest	148.326 +SubsectionMedium

Video of JY doing this

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

If Skiff’s book is published this year, Professor Nguyen vows she will urge the dean to promote Skiff. Thus, if Skiff’s book is as important and as well written as Skiff claims, he will be promoted, for Nguyen will certainly keep her promise, and the dean will surely promote Skiff if Nguyen recommends it.

Summary

If the book is both as important and as well written as Skiff says, he’ll get a promotion. Why? Because as long as the book is published this year, Nguyen will certainly urge the dean to promote Skiff, in which case the dean will surely do so.
We can simplify the conditional conclusion by kicking up the sufficient condition and taking for granted that yes, the book is as important and as well written as claimed.

Missing Connection

The conclusion is that a promotion is certain given that the book is as important and well-written as claimed, but the premises are all about how a promotion is certain if the book is published this year.

The premises would lead to the conclusion if we knew that as long as the book is as important and/or as well written as claimed, it will be published this year.

Skiff’s book will be published this year if it is as important as he claims it is.

The book being as important as claimed becomes a sufficient condition, all on its own, for promotion. So we can now validly conclude that, yes, if the book is as important as claimed (and it also happens to be as well written as claimed), Skiff gets the promotion.

Skiff needs to publish a book before he can be promoted.

This says that publishing is necessary for promotion. But we still know nothing about whether the book’s being as important and as well written as claimed will in any way lead to a promotion. So the conclusion doesn’t follow.

Professor Nguyen believes that Skiff’s book is well written.

What Nguyen believes is irrelevant. All that matters about Nguyen is whether he urges the dean to promote Skiff. We know Nguyen will do so as long as the book is published this year. Any other facts about Nguyen have no effect on the argument.

Skiff’s book will not be published unless it is as important and as well written as he claims it is.

This says that to be published this year—or ever—the book must be as important and as well written as claimed. But there’s still no indication that being that important and well written will be sufficient to get it published. So the conclusion doesn’t follow.

Skiff will not be promoted unless Professor Nguyen urges the dean to do so.

This means that Nguyen’s recommendation is necessary (as well as sufficient) for Skiff’s promotion. But we still know nothing about whether the book’s being as important and as well written as claimed will in any way lead to a promotion. So the conclusion doesn’t follow.

This question is difficult because of the obscuring of the premises and conclusion. Here's the premises and conclusion distilled, utilizing the skills we learned in our grammar lessons.

published --> prof. N promise to urge dean to promote S --> prof. N urge dean to promote S --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Reducing it, the argument goes:

published --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: import & well written --> published

But, the LSAC did something new this time. They gave us: import --> published

That actually works!

To see why, let's think about an analogous argument.

If you buy milk, then you will use cash. Therefore, if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash.

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: if you go to store & gas station, you will buy milk. But, doesn't that feel a little redundant? What if I just said "if you go to store, you will buy milk."

That also allows us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash."

In fact, it'll even allow us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station & mars & russia, you will use cash."

LSAT 139 – Section 4 – Question 21

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 21

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Video of JY doing this

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 139 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel