Q21 - Designer: Any garden and adjoining

by **ManhattanPrepLSAT1** Mon May 03, 2010 2:24 am

The designer says a lot. It’s pretty difficult to weave these statements together into some sort of second or third level inference by just reading them. The question stem does ask for what must be true, so let’s analyze the answer choices carefully as we look at them.

(A) ends by saying "unless the garden contributes strong visual interest." This implies that the garden contributing a strong visual interest is a necessary condition. "Strong visual interest" is preceded by the word "if" in the stimulus. So, stimulus states that "a strong visual interest" is a sufficient condition. The answer choice implies that it’s necessary, so answer choice cannot be inferred.
(B) Ends by saying "unless the garden is well coordinated with the room." The key word is "unless" implying that having a "garden well coordinated with the room is necessary. In stimulus know that it’s sufficient with the key word "if." This answer choice has mistaken a sufficient for necessary condition.
(C) Also mistakes a sufficient for necessary condition. The answer choice finishes by saying "unless the doors are open." The word "unless" indicates a necessary condition. The stimulus says, "If the sliding doors are opened." The word "if" indicates a sufficient condition. Thus answer choice (C) is not correct.
(D) Must be true. "Even if" implies neither sufficiency nor necessity. So, you could cross out everything including and after the words "even if" without changing the meaning of the statement. The stimulus says in the first sentence that "any garden and adjoining living room ... can visually merge into as single space."
(E) Mistakenly assumes necessity. "The summer" is not a required condition of anything according to stimulus. Answer choice (E) says that the summer is a necessary condition when it qualifies the statement with "Except in summer." Thus, one cannot infer answer choice (E).

by **jklein1233** Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:25 am

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the rationale behind this one... I narrowed it down to B and D but can't find a way to eliminate B despite the explanation you gave here. According to the information, in order for the effect (the garden and living room visually merging into a single space) to occur in colder weather, the garden must be well coordinated with the room and contribute strong visual interest of its own. The way I read this is that it cannot be possible for this visual merge to occur in cold months unless both these things occur (making them necessary conditions). Is it possible for the visual merge to occur if one of these things don't occur? Any help would be appreciated.

by **swwestley** Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:22 am

I used a slightly different reasoning to eliminate B, which I also found to be an initially tempting choice.

The "and" in the final sentence initially led me to believe that each condition separately was necessary, and the two together were sufficient. However, the idea that either condition is necessary is undermined both by the use of "if" rather than "only if", *and* the fact that the sentence is only talking about a "strong" sense that the rooms would merge into a single space, leaving open the possibility that they could merge into a single space "weakly" without both or even either of the conditions listed.

Now of these two methods, "if" vs "only if" is both stronger (more absolute) and more easily generalizable. But I believe that either line of reasoning is sufficient (haha) to show that the listed conditions are not necessary.

If the test creators were truly devious, they could have used "only if" in this sentence, and led hordes of test takers astray!

by **ManhattanPrepLSAT1** Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:56 pm

Good points, but you're reasoning isn't as different as you may think. You're focused on the distinction between "only if" and "if." That's a very important distinction. It's the difference between a sufficient condition and one that is necessary.

The explanation above attempted to point out that the stimulus implies that the garden being well coordinated with the room is a sufficient condition according to the stimulus since it uses the word "if." But according to the answer choice, it becomes a necessary condition since the answer choice uses the word "unless."

"Unless" and "only if" both introduce necessary conditions on the LSAT. So your distinction between "only if" and "if" is similar to the distinction made above between "unless" and "if."

For your second point about the effect remaining strong. That nuance is too close of a call for the test-writers to exploit and probably would not appear on the LSAT.

Great work! I think your attention to detail will pay off during your LSAT prep. Just remember that such a close reading of the implied meaning of the text is appropriate later in the LR section, but if you are as careful about shifts in language earlier in the section, I think you'll find it tough to find a satisfactory answer choice. Keep up the good work!

by **irini101** Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:47 pm

Hi mshermn, I am a little confused by how to diagramming"even if" and "except".

According to your analysis above, "even if" conveys no conditional reasoning, is it OK if I understand "...can visually merge...even if not contribute to visual interest" as:
"...can visually merge..." could coexists with "not contribute to visual interest" (and therefore there's no diagram) ?

And diagramming "except" is exactly the same way as diagramming "until"?
I diagram "except in summer, ....does not intensify the effect..." as:
intensify--> summer

Could you please help confirm whether the thought above correct?

Thanks a lot!

by **a3friedm** Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:11 pm

I'm having trouble understanding the formal logic here. I went with D instead of B because the stimulus tells us that "the effect remains quite strong during colder months if well coordinated and contributes strong interest of its own". Answer choice B says that "they will not visually merge unless the garden is well coordinated". Can't they still have they still have the effect even if the conditions aren't met? just perhaps not as strong?

I'm not sure if I reasoned this properly and I'm having a hard time viewing this abstractly in terms of the formal logic. If anyone has recommendations for further practice i'd really appreciate it.

by **ManhattanPrepLSAT1** Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:54 pm

Hey a3friedm,

I know we discussed this in class the other night, but for the sake of future readers...

Answer choice (B) suggests that "the garden is well coordinated with the room" is a necessary condition. We know this from the word "unless." The stimulus however, introduces that same idea with "if," suggesting that it is a sufficient condition.

Thus we can say that answer choice (B) mistakes a sufficient condition for one that is necessary.

Hope that helps, but I don't know of a whole bunch of questions that play out very much like this one.

by **nflamel69** Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:44 pm

Can any geeks shed light on this?

I didn't like D because of the fact that the stimulus qualified that any garden and adjoining rooms can merge if they are separated by a gliding door. However, D doesn't qualify the gardens to those with sliding doors, wouldn't that be a generalization?

by **ManhattanPrepLSAT1** Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:41 pm

Notice the weakness of both the claim in the stimulus and in answer choice (D). The answer choice can get away with not qualifying the claim because it's so weak: A garden can visually merge...

A garden can merge with an adjoining living room even if the two are separated by glass doors, according to the stimulus.

Because of the weakness of the claim, the statement can seem like a broad generalization. For example, suppose baseball players who bat right-handed can be hit by a left-handed pitcher. From that we can still say that baseball players can be hit by a left-handed pitcher.

Does that answer your question?

by **zip** Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:04 pm

Also, it's not a must be true question--only a most strongly supported one. In terms of strict logic, the credited answer is not a must be true. While it is true that the space can always merge if the sliding doors open, there is the modal possibility that this can occur only if there is a well coordinated deal This however is highly unlikely, thus it is well supported that the spaces can merge even if the well coordinated condition obtains.

by **samuelfbaron** Fri May 03, 2013 10:50 pm

Any garden and adjoining living room that are separated from one another by sliding glass can visually merge into a single space.

(D) A garden can visually merge with an adjoining living room into a single space (the even part you can ignore).

sliding glass is not indicated to be a necessary or sufficient condition of the 'merging into a single space.

I selected (D) simply by realizing it was a restatement of the first sentence.