Q19 - Professor: It has been argued

[zwatson1]

I don't understand the reasoning behind answer C? Why is E incorrect?

[aileenann]

Thanks for your question! This is a really tough one, so I do think it's especially important to understand the argument even before launching into the answer choices.

This looks like a really good candidate to diagram in terms of conditionals. If you do that, you should get the following.

IP -> FT -> PI (1st sentence)
IP -> MFI -> ID (2nd sentence)
Therefore FT no good (or at least no IP with FT) (3rd sentence)

The tip-off that this would be a good one to do with conditional relationships are both the formal language ("without," "necessary," etc) and also the very complicated nature of the argument the author is making.

They are asking us for the assumption, so we need to find something that tells us basically that FT and ID don't go together, and specifically, that FT implies no ID, which happens to be answer choice (C). That's the general gist, but the mechanics are as follows:

The author is saying the argument fails. The argument fails specifically because, he thinks, FT and IP are not compatible. The way for this to be true in the argument is for FT -> No ID. This is so because if you take the contrapositive of the conditional statements generated with the 2nd sentence, you will see that this assumption could combine with the contrapositive of that 2nd conditional string to lead to: FT -> No ID -> No MFI -> No IP. Done!

I can see why (E) would be a tempting choice - it has all the words we are hoping to see (specifically, something linking FT and ID). However, (E) says no ID -> no FT. The contrapositive of this is FT -> ID. This is exactly the opposite of what we want, and will not link up nicely with the conditional relationships we already know.

I hope this helps. This is a tough problem, for sure, so please do reach out again on the forum if you have more questions about this one

(Btw, we teach this problem in one of the Atlas classes, so if you are an Atlas student you might consider logging in and checking out the class recordings!)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This question asks us to find an assumption that would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn. We call these Sufficient Assumptions. To answer this question we need to find the gap in the reasoning and for this question, the easiest way to see the gap is to rely on conditional logic. The argument is filled with it and by mapping out the relationships, we should be more easily able to see the gap in the reasoning.

The argument put into formal notation looks like

IP --> MFI
MFI --> ID
-----------
IP --> ~FT

Formal Notation Key: IP = Intellectual Progress, MFI = Mine Full Implications, ID = Intellectual Discipline, FT = Freedom of Thought

If we combine the first two pieces of evidence, the argument would look like

IP --> ID
----------
IP --> ~FT

The gap in the reasoning is ID --> ~FT

IP --> ID the combined evidence
(ID --> ~FT) the assumption
-----------
IP --> ~FT the stated conclusion

Answer choice (C) is the contrapositive of the assumption found. It says FT --> ~ID.

(A) does not bridge the gap because it does not allow for a conclusion about freedom of thought to be concluded.
(B) states the Reversal of the first premise and includes an error. For both reasons it does not bridge the gap. The error is that to "make" intellectual progress and to "value" intellectual progress are separate issues. The stimulus discusses the former, while the answer choice discusses the latter.
(C) is the contrapositive of the gap we found earlier and is therefore the correct answer.
(D) is out of scope. The "discovery of truth" is not relevant to the argument.
(E) is really tempting. But put into IF ... , THEN ... form would read, "If thinkers can have freedom of thought, then they must have intellectual discipline." Notice this answer choice forgot to negate intellectual discipline. It should have read, "If thinkers can have freedom of thought, then they must not have intellectual discipline."

Sometimes formal notation of conditional logic can be really useful, and generally speaking, sufficient assumptions later in the logical reasoning section are questions that rely on this skill. Hope this helps clear things up! Let me know otherwise...

[c.s.sun5]

So for the last part where you mapped out that IP-->~FT, did you get it from the last sentence and the first sentence? The fact that the question said FT is a precondition means that FT is the necessary part of the conditional right? And then the last sentence said that the argument does not work meaning that the FT becomes ~FT?

Just need some clarification on that...

[fyami001]

Hello,
I completely understood this:
"IP --> ID the combined evidence
(ID --> ~FT) the assumption
-----------
IP --> ~FT the stated conclusion"

What I didn't completely understand was the translation of the terms into sufficient and necessary conditions in the states conclusion because I am confused by the phrase: " freedom of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress". I would have translated this statement into:
FT--> IP, not IP-->FT.

I understand the former option is wrong but I do not understand why FT cannot be a sufficient condition.

Any help is very appreciated.

[mcrittell]

I was unsure how to diagram "free of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress"

Is a precondition a necessary cue?

[timmydoeslsat]

Yes, a precondition or a prerequisite are necessary condition cues. Those ideas indicate that you have to have something before something else can happen, which would make those items necessary.

[jlz1202]

hello,

I really appreciate your help and i was blank when confronting this question, the only problem remained is how to translate "allow" into sufficient/necessary condition?

I saw in your analysis above: if A allows B, it would be A--> B, but i dont understand why A would be sufficient condition, as besiedes A, there could be other factors (D, E, F) "allows" B, i used to think it as B--> A since its contrapositive would be not A--> not B, therefore A "allows" B. but obviously my version does not work in this question.

thank you very much!

[timmydoeslsat]

hello,

I really appreciate your help and i was blank when confronting this question, the only problem remained is how to translate "allow" into sufficient/necessary condition?

I saw in your analysis above: if A allows B, it would be A--> B, but i dont understand why A would be sufficient condition, as besiedes A, there could be other factors (D, E, F) "allows" B, i used to think it as B--> A since its contrapositive would be not A--> not B, therefore A "allows" B. but obviously my version does not work in this question.

thank you very much!

There is some inaccurate things in your post.

First, when you have a situation of " if A then B " ...

We have A ---> B

However, that does not prohibit other things from also being sufficient for B.

For example...

If it is an apple, then it is a fruit.

A ---> F

We can also reach fruit in other ways.

If it is a banana, then it is a fruit.

B ---> F

The contrapositive is always performed when you show that the absence of a necessary condition will entail the absence of that sufficient condition.

For example, if we do not have a fruit, we do not have an apple.

~ F ---> ~A

There is also nothing prohibiting an apple from being something else either. You are simply giving necessary characteristics of a sufficient condition.

If it is an apple, then it grew on a tree.

A ---> Grew on tree

[greenbean]

Thanks for your question! This is a really tough one, so I do think it's especially important to understand the argument even before launching into the answer choices.

This looks like a really good candidate to diagram in terms of conditionals. If you do that, you should get the following.

IP -> FT -> PI (1st sentence)
IP -> MFI -> ID (2nd sentence)
Therefore FT no good (or at least no IP with FT) (3rd sentence)

The tip-off that this would be a good one to do with conditional relationships are both the formal language ("without," "necessary," etc) and also the very complicated nature of the argument the author is making.

They are asking us for the assumption, so we need to find something that tells us basically that FT and ID don't go together, and specifically, that FT implies no ID, which happens to be answer choice (C). That's the general gist, but the mechanics are as follows:

The author is saying the argument fails. The argument fails specifically because, he thinks, FT and IP are not compatible. The way for this to be true in the argument is for FT -> No ID. This is so because if you take the contrapositive of the conditional statements generated with the 2nd sentence, you will see that this assumption could combine with the contrapositive of that 2nd conditional string to lead to: FT -> No ID -> No MFI -> No IP. Done!

I can see why (E) would be a tempting choice - it has all the words we are hoping to see (specifically, something linking FT and ID). However, (E) says no ID -> no FT. The contrapositive of this is FT -> ID. This is exactly the opposite of what we want, and will not link up nicely with the conditional relationships we already know.

I hope this helps. This is a tough problem, for sure, so please do reach out again on the forum if you have more questions about this one

(Btw, we teach this problem in one of the Atlas classes, so if you are an Atlas student you might consider logging in and checking out the class recordings!)

Would it be fair to say that the PI portion of the first sentence is irrelevant in solving this problem? In other words, if you removed the PI portion of the 1st sentence, it would have no effect on solving the problem? Thanks for your help!

[timmydoeslsat]

Personally, I would have a problem with doing that and the following is why I do.

When we read the argument, we are not sure where the argument is going and what it is trying to accomplish. After reading it, we see that the conclusion is reflexive, meaning that it refers to something stated previously in the argument. The conclusion is that "this argument for FOT fails." What is this argument?

The argument for IP ---> FOT.

So we do need that part in considering how we can sufficiently show that this argument does in fact fail. To show this conditional failing, we want to show that FOT is not necessary to IP.

The argument we have in this stimulus is:

Argument: IP ---> FOT

IP ---> MFI ---> ID
_______________________
Therefore the argument put forward fails.

The problem we have at this moment is that it can be true that IP has all of those necessary conditions! Perhaps to be IP, you must be FOT, you must be MFI, and you must be ID. We just do not know.

This arguer claims he does know. He says that FOT is not necessary to IP.

To sufficiently show this, we can expect that ID leads to ~FOT.

And this is what happens.

Equivalent situation:

Argument: Grandmom Food ---> Best Food

Grandmom Food ---> Homemade ---> Store name brand items
______________________________________
Therefore the argument fails!

This shows even more clearly how it is not absurd for grandmom food to have all of these as necessary conditions. We can't it not be the case that it is the best, it is homemade, and it is used from store name brand items? The arguer has assumed that these conditions are conflicting. We can sufficiently show that the argument of grandmom food ---> best food does fail by showing that Store name brand items leads to ~Best Food.

[syousif3]

Personally, I would have a problem with doing that and the following is why I do.

When we read the argument, we are not sure where the argument is going and what it is trying to accomplish. After reading it, we see that the conclusion is reflexive, meaning that it refers to something stated previously in the argument. The conclusion is that "this argument for FOT fails." What is this argument?

The argument for IP ---> FOT.

So we do need that part in considering how we can sufficiently show that this argument does in fact fail. To show this conditional failing, we want to show that FOT is not necessary to IP.

The argument we have in this stimulus is:

Argument: IP ---> FOT

IP ---> MFI ---> ID
_______________________
Therefore the argument put forward fails.

The problem we have at this moment is that it can be true that IP has all of those necessary conditions! Perhaps to be IP, you must be FOT, you must be MFI, and you must be ID. We just do not know.

This arguer claims he does know. He says that FOT is not necessary to IP.

To sufficiently show this, we can expect that ID leads to ~FOT.

And this is what happens.
.

i'm having such a hard time seeing how you got to here IP ---> MFI ---> ID and how you connected ID to ~FOT. Please help!

[timmydoeslsat]

The conditional chain of IP ---> MFI ---> ID is found in the second sentence starting with however.

The language of, "one must MFI to have IP" is grounds for us to say IP ---> MFI.

We also know that for MFI to occur, we must have ID. This gives us a chain of IP ---> MFI ---> ID

We know that the conclusion of our argument is that "this" argument for freedom of thought fails. What was "this" argument?

It was IP ---> FoT

So as of now we do not have sufficient information to prove that the IP ---> MFI ---> ID chain proves that IP ---> FoT is incorrect.

We can expect the correct answer to deal with FoT, as our new argument attempting to disprove the original argument does not mention how FoT factors into all of this.

Our correct answer simply says FoT ---> ~ID.

We wanted something that shows the following 2 statements to be inconsistent or unacceptable with each other.

1) IP ---> MFI ---> ID
2) IP ---> FoT

And thats what D does.

[xmomo]

This was a bit difficult for me to diagram because I don't really understand the stimulus. I see the conditional logic, but I would never have known how to diagram the stimulus into formal logic.

IP -> MFI
MFI -> ID

I don't get where the MFI came from in the first conditional sentence. I diagrammed the first sentence as IP -> FOT. The second sentence, I would diagram as MFI -> IP. But, I would not associate FOT as MFI, especially since the second sentence says "however," which gave me a cue that FOT is not MFI. Can someone please explain this to me?

[sumukh09]

Hey Matt,

How do you know what elements of the stimulus to ignore when diagramming your conditional logic statements? For example, in this question you completely ignored "freedom of thought" in the first sentence and thus the part about FT being a precondition (or necessary condition) for intellectual progress.

IP ---> MFI

MFI ---> ID

Therefore: IP ---> ~ FT

is a lot more concise but I'm having trouble seeing how you were able to bypass so many elements of the stimulus and yet arrive at the correct answer.

Actually, I just reread the stimulus and realized that your conditional logic is based on everything after "However" and nothing before that. Is the reason for this because all that is necessary to diagram conditionally is the "core" of the argument and nothing other than the core? The first sentence is an opposing point so I guess that explains why you ignored it. In situations where there's conditional logic in the opposing point, should we just ignore the opposing point's conditional statements and go straight to the core? Thanks!

[ban2110]

Hey Matt,

How do you know what elements of the stimulus to ignore when diagramming your conditional logic statements? For example, in this question you completely ignored "freedom of thought" in the first sentence and thus the part about FT being a precondition (or necessary condition) for intellectual progress.

IP ---> MFI

MFI ---> ID

Therefore: IP ---> ~ FT

is a lot more concise but I'm having trouble seeing how you were able to bypass so many elements of the stimulus and yet arrive at the correct answer.

Actually, I just reread the stimulus and realized that your conditional logic is based on everything after "However" and nothing before that. Is the reason for this because all that is necessary to diagram conditionally is the "core" of the argument and nothing other than the core? The first sentence is an opposing point so I guess that explains why you ignored it. In situations where there's conditional logic in the opposing point, should we just ignore the opposing point's conditional statements and go straight to the core? Thanks!

This is quite old and you probably already figured it out, but I'd like to try my hand at an explanation.

The first conditional statement (IP-->FT) is not needed because the conclusion already states that the argument for that conditional statement fails, which is why the conclusion is IP-->~FT. So, in diagramming the statements all that is needed is:

IP-->ID
(ID-->~FT) as the sufficient assumption
--------
IP--->~FT

[mitrakhanom1]

How did you figure out in the conclusion the IP part of IP--> -FT? When I read the conclusion, "Therefore, this argument for freedom of thought fails." How am I suppose to know "this argument" means IP? Or how else did you figure out its IP? I understand the rest of the conditionals for the premises and I understand how the assumption was gotten too.

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Mitrakhanom1,

This argument takes a classic form of “Some people say X ... however, premise … therefore X is wrong.” You are absolutely right that the conclusion is “therefore this argument fails.” In this classic argument form, the conclusion disagrees with whatever the “some people” say. In this case, the author disagrees with the argument that freedom of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress.

In terms of the conditional flow, “precondition” is a necessary condition indicator. Thus, “some people’s” argument is:

Intellectual progress --> Freedom of thought.

The author disagrees; negate a conditional statement by negating its necessary condition.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Rina

[BensonC202]

Yes, a precondition or a prerequisite are necessary condition cues. Those ideas indicate that you have to have something before something else can happen, which would make those items necessary.

Hi Timmy

Please allow me to share my thoughts regarding your analysis regarding the terms of " precondition " equals to the necessarily cue.

Conditional chain:

1.IP ---> FOT ( Freedom of thought ) = A ---> B = ~ B ---> ~ A

2. IP ---> FIOII ( full implications of interrelated idea ) ---> ID ( intellectual Discipline ) = A ---> C ---> D = ~ D ---> ~C ---> ~ A

Therefore, argument for FOT fail ( ~ FOT ) = ~ B


By combining 2 premises' contrapositives, we can have ~B ---> ~ D ( if No freedom of thought, it must be true that No intellectual discipline ); however, its the contrapositive of the incorrect answer E.

evidenced from the analysis, the term - precondition should be defined as the sufficient condition for intellectual progress, since

1. FOT ---> IP = B ---> A

2. IP ---> FIOII ( full implications of interrelated idea ) ---> ID ( intellectual Discipline ) = A ---> C ---> D

Combine 2 premises = B ---> A ---> C ---> D

Conclusion is, Argument for B fail, then we know that what we want to DO is to negate D ( Intellectual Discipline ), which is B ---> ~ D

So, perfectly matching the correct answer C = freedom of thought ---> no intellectual discipline.


Just my humble 2 cents share, and always please let me know if my reasoning is wrong.