Q17 - Whenever a company loses

[peg_city]

Why is E wrong?

Would it be right if it said, "Oroco's sales have increased; therefore, it likely that the company did advertise its products effectively?" IE would the answer have been right if it wasn't negated?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The flaw in this argument that we're trying to match is "reversed logic." The stimulus goes something along the lines of:

LL ---> SF
SF
---------
LL

Notation Key: LL = loses a lawsuit, SF = stock price falls

Answer choice (E) is not even a flawed argument. Instead it's one that rests on something called a contrapositive. Put into notation it looks something more like:

AE ---> SI
~SI
----------
~AE

Notation Key: AE = advertises effectively, SI = sales increase

Answer choice (D) - the correct answer - looks something like this:

WF ---> R$
R$
--------------
WF

Notation Key: WF = wins fellowship, R$ = receives $10,000

On answer choice (D), the test writer tries to disguise the order of the second half of the argument. Rather than putting the conclusion last (as in the stimulus), in answer choice (D) the conclusion appears right before the final piece of evidence - notice the word "because" in the last sentence organizing the the conclusion and evidence. The order's not the same - BUT the logic is!

Hope that helps, and let me know if you still have questions on this one!

[emharr]

I am having trouble understanding why (C) is incorrect. Could someone explain this answer choice in terms of its conditional relationship?

[alexg89]

For problem C

LL > RPD

The contrapostive is

~RPD > ~LL

The conclusion is saying that you will gain respect by showing leadership.

The only thing that can be deduced from the premise is that if respect for the policies does not begin to decline then lack of leadership is not being shown. You cannot infer that it will gain respect, only that it will not decline. This is a different kind of flaw than confusing a necessary component to be sufficient which is the kind of flaw in the stimulus.