Q14 - Marian Anderson, the famous contralto

[chike_eze]

This question was explained in the LR strategy guide, but something was bugging me about the answer choices. I wondered, why the LSAT prep guys included answer choices C, D, and E? (some explanation was given in the strategy guide but...)

Here's my take using Conditional Logic.

Marian Anderson did not take Success for granted = -SG
Marian had to Struggle Early in life = SE
Anyone who has a Good perspective on the world = GPW

Any one who struggles early in life [including Marian of course], keeps a good perspective on the world = SE --> GPW

Premise: SE --> GPW
Conclusion: -SG
Assumption: Guarantee that Anyone who Struggles Early in life does not take Success for Granted
1) SE --> -SG or
2) GPW --> -SG

> GPW --> -SG because if GPW is sufficient to conclude -SG, then by logical inference SE is sufficient to conclude -SG.
(i.e., SE --> GPW --> -SG therefore SE --> -SG)

ANSWER CHOICES
(A) Anyone who succeeds --> SG (out of scope)
(B) GPW --> -SG (Correct! option 2)
(C) GPW --> SE (reverse premise)
(D) -SG --> SE (reverse of option 1)
(E) -SG --> GPW (reverse of option 2)

Please let me know if this reasoning is valid. I want to enhance my ability to switch between conceptual thinking and formal logic to attack similar questions.

[noah]

You're golden!

The one part I would point out is this:

Assumption: Guarantee that Anyone who Struggles Early in life does not take Success for Granted
1) SE --> -SG or
2) GPW --> -SG

It's far more likely that the LSAT will base the answer on the second assumption - otherwise it would skip using all the premises.

FYI, I sketched this a bit differently, but basically the same:

MA --> SE --> GPW
Conclusion: MA --> - SG

So, in my head: MA --> SE --> GPW --?--> - SG
What's the "link" that's missing? GPW --?--> - SG, so I look for it (or the contrapositive, which is obviously the same logically).

Nice work!

[chike_eze]

Thanks.

See, I had time to go over this question in great detail. I think I spent 30 minutes or so going through all the possibilities, evaluating inferences, and rewriting the prompt.

Certainly not a high difficulty question, but in my opinion, the answer options are tricky if you do not get the assumption up front.

On the real test, how would you approach a similar conditional question?
> Formal logic mindset, conceptual mindset, or both?

Thoughts??

[noah]

I think there's not a firm line between a logic mindset and a conceptual one, but if you mean would I diagram this argument, personally I would. Some of my colleagues probably wouldn't need to, but I get turned around pretty easily on a question like this, so I slow down and diagram it out.

i think you should focus on identifying the conclusion and then setting up an "empty" chain that leads to it. Fill in the premises to try to get from the initial premise to that final conclusion. 90%+ of the time, the gap is between the last part of the premise chain and the conclusion.

Note which elements seem to be called for, identify those answers, and then see which one has them in the right "order" (relationship). You don't necessarily want to work wrong to right in this sort of situation. (I know, we push wrong-to-right all over the place, but hey, let's keep it flexible!)

With sufficient assumptions, which these conditional logic-heavy assumptions questions usually are, you can usually predict the answer if you grasp the argument and the gap.

[bernard.agrest]

Struggle in life --> Good Perspective --> (N) Success For Granted.

B) Gives us this exact relationship. If you are able to keep a good perspective, the, you do not (the N) take success for granted.

[Theodore S K525]

Could anyone explain why the phrase "anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the world." is NOT an intermediate conclusion?

In my view, there are two things that make me feel like it is a IC:

1. It feels like an opinion to me

2. IC by rule are supposed to be supported by premises beforehand (otherwise, they cannot "conclude" something), and this phrase seems to be supported by the premise "We know this because Anderson had to struggle early in life"

So why is "anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the world." identified as a complementary premise?


Thank you!