Q10 - There are rumors that

[skapur777]

I got this answer right but I had a question about choice A.

Is choice A saying:

A. When a conclusion follows logically, the odds of the conclusion being true are equal to or greater than the probability of the premises being true?

If that's the case I totally see why this is wrong. The conclusion here is that the Premier won't be reshuffling since it is preceded by meetings between the Premier and the cabinet. Is there ANY relationship between choice A and the argument? If we adopt this principle, then I don't see how this affects it in any way. I know it does in a WRONG way, but I wanna see exactly how.

As for B, I knew it was right but, due to the ambiguous wording, I could only barely suss out its meaning. What the hell is "...when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain..." mean? Is that even grammatically correct??

[bbirdwell]

A. When a conclusion follows logically, the odds of the conclusion being true are equal to or greater than the probability of the premises being true?

I think that's a fair re-phrasing. Doesn't really affect our argument one way or another because no comparison about the likelihood of premise vs conclusion being true is made.

As for B, I knew it was right but, due to the ambiguous wording, I could only barely suss out its meaning. What the hell is "...when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain..." mean? Is that even grammatically correct??

I know what you mean! Yes, it is grammatically correct -- an obscure, intransitive form of the verb "obtain" is being used. You can basically substitute "become established" for the word "obtain" here, or even simply "happen."

So, for (B): A hypothesis is undermined when something doesn't happen that we would expect to happen if the hypothesis were true. Which matches, "He's not gonna reshuffle because he hasn't had meetings, and we'd expect him to have meetings if he was gonna reshuffle."

(C) is out because the hyp is not supported by all the data.

(D) is a bad match because there's really no causal argument here. Even if we let that slide, this choice arrives at the opposite conclusion -- such reasoning would not be "erroneous" accord to the original, but in fact correct.

(E) does not match this argument, as it does not contain two inconsistent statements.

Does that help?

[skapur777]

Absolutely, thank you so much!

[Mab6q]

I have a general question about principle justify and principle conform questions. I understand that these questions almost always give us an argument like we're used to see for other reasoning question. However, will the arguments always be flawed like they are for the other reasoning questions, or does the LSAT give us valid arguments as well?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

Principle Support/Justify questions will give you an argument, and it will be flawed.

Principle Example/Conform questions will not give you an argument; they will give you a principle or illustrate a principle, and you will find the scenario that best demonstrates it. These aren't "flawed" really, or at least, that's not a useful way to think about it, because you're starting with a principle and trying to find a match.