Q1 - A distinguished British judge, Justice

[cyruswhittaker]

This question asks for the conclusion, but it really seems like choice (C), the correct answer, goes a bit too far from the passage itself. From the passage, I have:

(if judges are not well equipped)-->(something badly wrong with legal system)

Because there's "little reason to suppose that there is," we can deduce from the contrapositive that judges ARE well equipped.

Two thoughts:

1) Isn't there a fundamental distinction between "well equipped" and "qualified?"

2) Seems like (C) represents more of an inference. I guess this could be thought of as a "conclusion" drawn from the argument, but normally with LSAT questions of this sort, the conclusion is nearly explicitly stated in the passage.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

[opulence2001]

I set up the question the same way you did. But I got C.
If judges are not well equipped then there is something wrong. So I said: if -E (not equipped) then W(something is wrong with the legal system). So we have the following condition:

if -E then W
The contrapositive is if -W then E.

If something is not wrong then the judges are equipped. The argument tells you that there is little to suppose there is wrong. So we have -W. We can deduce as you said that judges are equipped. This is essentially what C says. I think they deliberately switch up the word equipped for qualified to make it more difficult to pick out.

A - Pretty much this tells us -W, which leads to a conclusion. This is evidence.

B - out of scope. nothing in the argument indicates how much of a role judges play or even a condition on playing a greater part.

Both D and E switch up the sufficient and the necessary in the condition.
D says, if W then -E . We know that the argument says the opposite.

E says, if E then -W. This is the opposite of the argument's contrapositve.

[giladedelman]

Fantastic explanation! Here's my two cents:

1) "Qualified" and "well-equipped" may not be exact synonyms, but they're darned close. The answer to an identify the conclusion question will always rephrase the conclusion somewhat. Remember, we're looking for the closest match, not the 100% accurate recreation.

2) The judge does state this conclusion explicitly. Notice that the word "should" is not used in the normative sense, that is, the judge isn't saying that it would be best if judges were well-equipped. Rather, he's using it in the epistemological sense (as in, "Since there's little traffic, we should arrive on time), saying that, given the facts, it's probably true that judges are well-equipped.

You dig? Nice discussion.

[samuelfbaron]

This question was very frustrating! I didn't realize it was an Inference question, it seemed more to me like an 'identify the conclusion', where we just find the sentence that best represents the argument's conclusion.

[WaltGrace1983]

This question was very frustrating! I didn't realize it was an Inference question, it seemed more to me like an 'identify the conclusion', where we just find the sentence that best represents the argument's conclusion.

This question is an "identify the conclusion" question. It is just not as easy as word matching the conclusion. The discussion is the following...

~Well-equipped → Badly wrong
(...or else) → (...there would be something badly wrong)

The "or else" is saying, "okay. suppose that they WEREN'T well equipped..."

~Badly wrong → Well-equipped
(...and there is little reason to suppose that there is) → ______

The "...and there is little reason to suppose that there is" is basically saying "There is NOT anything 'badly wrong'..."

So you see what is happening here? The judge gives us an argument. Following this, the judge gives us the sufficient condition of the contrapositive of that argument. Okay.

However, I see what you mean. The judge never explicitly says the conclusion. In a way, this is less like an inference question and more like a "complete the passage" question. I don't know but I DO see what you mean - it isn't the easiest conclusion question.

(A) This is not the overall point of the argument. I think we could use the therefore test here to see this. The judge is not saying X, therefore, "there is nothing much wrong with the legal system." That just happens to be the last thing he says. In fact, there is no supporting evidence for (A) at all.

(B) We know nothing about this. The judge never talks about it in any way. The judge is just speaking to whether or not judges are well-equipped to make a certain judgement.

(C) This looks much better!

(D) Mistaken reversal. We know nothing about the argument if "If something were badly wrong..." is the sufficient condition. Notice how the judge frames this argument. We know that IF the judges aren't well equipped THEN "something is badly wrong." However, we don't know nothing about IF "something is badly wrong..."

(E) Mistaken reversal, again. We know what happens IF they aren't well equipped: THEN "something is badly wrong." However, we don't know what happens IF they are well-equipped.

======

(C) works. The rest are clearly wrong. As for the discussion between "well-equipped" and "qualified," I might be more concerned if this were question #17 or even #8. However, considering all the rest are clearly wrong and this one is the best answer, I won't hesitate too much to make this teeny tiny leap. The dictionary says its okay too so I'm good with it.

[cverdugo]

This question really tripped me up, reading the explanations help but I think typing it out and breaking it down might be the best course of action.

Judge Upton that whether some AD by a government is reasonable ----> is a question that judges with their training and experience, should be well-equipped to answer or else there would be something BW with the legal system


Then he states there is little reason to suppose there is...

I just had a hard time making sense of this and I rushed into the answer choices especially since it was question 1. The answers really confused me more I picked D. Let's break it down....


~W(Not well-equipped ----> ~legal system(crap LS) the contrapositive would be Legal System ---> W---> with that we know about the reasonableness of a government official (The Conclusion)

I think another way to look at this type of question is to get a feel for the different parts of the argument and understand why exactly they are giving us certain information. For example with this argument we look at the information in the quotes and see that it's evidence for the main point of the argument.

(A): This is stated in the argument but is not the main point of this piece, in fact knowing this is sufficient in knowing the answer to the conclusion (Reasonableness of AD)

(B) Just totally out of scope nothing of the sort is mentioned in, he might not even give one dame

(C) The conclusion that was drawn to the tee. I need to really get a feel for the arguments and predict.

(D) This is a mistaken reversal. We do not know this at all. This is a bad leap of logic!

(E) Another mix-up a trap answer, but remember the conclusion that is drawn is that it is reasonable nothing more!