Q21 - Many successful graphic designers

[sgorginian]

I had trouble with choosing between B & C. The book says the answer is B but I found C to be more provable based on passage.


Many successful graphic designers began their careers after years of formal training, although a significant number learned their trade more informally on the job. But no designer ever became successful who ignored the wishes of a client.

If above is true, then which of the following must be true?

A. All graphic designers who are unsuccessful have ignored the wishes of a client.
(Could be that they are unsuccessful because they are not good or have bad breathe - not necessarily because they ignore the clients wishes. Although if you want to be successful, then you can not ignore the clients wishes. Eliminate it)

B. Not all formally trained graphic designers ignore clients' wishes.
(Could be true, not necessarily must be true because they could ignore clients' wishes. Doesn't mention that they will or will not be successful - so that's why I eliminated it).

C. The more attentive a graphic designer is to a client's wishes, the more likely the designer is to be successful.
(Don't like the word attentive but the logic is simple enough to be true. If you are attentive to the clients wishes, then yes you are more likely to be successful)

D. No graphic designers who learn their trade on the job will ignore clients' wishes.
(Not necessarily true. No mention of being successful. So you could learn on the job and still ignore clients' wishes)

E. The most successful graphic designers learn their trade on the job.
("Most" is extreme modifier that makes this statement not provable. Eliminate it)


thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This question is asking us to find what must be true based on the information presented and while your answer makes a lot of sense in the real world, we need to limit the information we use in finding the correct answer to only what is stated in the paragraph.

We know that many successful graphic designers had formal training. We also know that many successful graphic designers did not have formal training (it says that they learned "informally on the job"). The last sentence is a bit convoluted but it says that all successful graphic designers do not ignore the wishes of their clients.

From these three statements we can infer two things. 1) that some who had formal training did not ignore the wishes of their clients, and 2) that some who did not have formal training did not ignore the wishes of their clients.

Another way of saying that some who had formal training did not ignore the wishes of their clients is to say that not all who had formal training ignored the wishes of their clients. From the way you discussed answer choice (B), I got the impression that you interpreted it to mean that none of those who had formal training ignored the wishes of their clients, but "not all" could be rephrased as "some did not."

In the end, answer choice (B) is one of the two inferences we can make from the statements in the paragraph, and while answer choice (C) is intuitive and makes sense in the real world, we cannot find supporting evidence for a relative claim that the "more attentive" the "more successful" that designer will be.

Let me know if you need further explanation.

[chike_eze]

Answered this question (untimed). Arrived at the right answer, but my debate was between A and B. At first I tried to diagram the argument, but made some mistakes that hinted at A.

But intuitively, (A) read like a flawed inference based on the last sentence in the prompt (even though at the time I couldn't prove it). (C) was also attractive, but I thought (hmm... slow down a sec, I wonder why the LSAT goons inserted "more attentive" in there? Sounds too good to be true, Must be a trick... and O wait, is "not ignore" the same as saying "more attentive"? No, not necessarily.. therefore, scratch C!)

Now down to A and B. I Chose B, why? intuition-- (A) did not sound right. Any thoughts on intuition vs. (or +) drawn out diagramming. I don't seem to have the right mix yet

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So I would typically use conditional logic to see this one if I were taking this LSAT. I'd notate the stimulus in the following way:

SGD some FT
SGD some ~FT
SGD ---> ~IWC

(Notation key: SGD = successful graphic designer, FT = formal training, IWC = ignore the wishes of a client)

From those claims we can arrive at two inferences.

Combining the 1st and 3rd premise
FT some ~IWC

In English this says that some were formally trained did not ignore the wishes of a client - which is answer choice (B).

Combining the 2nd and 3rd premise
~FT some ~IWC

Some who were not formally trained did not ignore the wishes of a client - not amongst the answers.

So yeah, conditional logic can be useful on this one, but it does use the more advanced quantified statements. Lots of folks would rather use their intuition on questions like these but personally I just find that to be too much work to actually think about the implied relationships. For others though, the notation can be really tough to do accurately, or their own internal reasoning skills are sufficient to work through such logic. I dont think you'll get the same suggestion from everyone.

Hope that helps!

[chike_eze]

So yeah, conditional logic can be useful on this one, but it does use the more advanced quantified statements. Lots of folks would rather use their intuition on questions like these but personally I just find that to be too much work to actually think about the implied relationships. For others though, the notation can be really tough to do accurately, or their own internal reasoning skills are sufficient to work through such logic. Indont think you'll get the same suggestion from everyone.
Hope that helps!

Slowly coming to the realization that there are no "great" methods for attacking LR. But, how we customize great methods to our individual strengths and weaknesses make those methods great. "To each his own" as they say.

Thanks,

Chike

[velvet]

So I would typically use conditional logic to see this one if I were taking this LSAT. I'd notate the stimulus in the following way:

SGD some FT
SGD some ~FT
SGD ---> ~IWC

I took "significant number" to mean most, so diagrammed your second premise as: SGD Most ~FT.

So is "significant" a vague quantity that should always be diagrammed as "Some"?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That's right! If you ever see

a large amount
a significant percentage
a large percentage
there are...
etc..

Any unspecified amount will translate to a some statement!

[mitrakhanom1]

I'm still confused on how to interpret the part that says, " But no designer ever became successful who ignored the wishes of a client."

The last sentence is a bit convoluted but it says that all successful graphic designers do not ignore the wishes of their clients.

I want to know how you figured this out Matt!

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

First of all, you should learn the automatic formula for any sentence structured this way:

No A's are B's
is the same as
All A's are NOT B's.

No NFL players are women = All NFL players are NOT women

Any time a sentence has the structure
No one who is X is Y, you symbolize that as
X --> ~Y

Let's think for a second why this makes intuitive sense:

Say I give you this rule:
"No one has ever gotten into Harvard with an LSAT score below 140"

And now I tell you that
Bob got into Harvard

Do you know anything about his LSAT score?

Of course! You know he got 140 or higher.

Now say I tell you
Roy did not get into Harvard

Do you know anything about his LSAT score?

Can we conclude that he scored under 140? Of course not. Maybe he got a 130. But maybe he got a great score. Tons of people get rejected from Harvard with 150's and 160's and 170's.

The fact that "got into Harvard" made us certain about the LSAT score, but "didn't get into Harvard" did NOT make us certain is telling us that "got into Harvard" is a sufficient trigger ... it provides certainty of something else. The fact that "didn't get into Harvard" doesn't really tell us anything means it's NOT a sufficient trigger.

Got into Harvard --> got at least a 140

Didn't get into Harvard --> ?????

So thinking about the original rule again, it was
"no one ever gets into Harvard with an LSAT score below 140"
"no A's are B's"

Formulaically, we translate that as A -->~B

In this case that would be
DO get into Harvard --> DON'T have an LSAT score below 140

So translating
"no successful graphic designer ignored the wishes"
"no A's are B's"

becomes
ARE a Successful Graphic Designer --> DIDN'T ignore wishes

(Another important translation to have memorized is
"not all A's are B's" = "some A's are NOT B's".

If I said "not all vampires are blood suckers" that would be logically equivalent to saying "some vampires are NOT blood suckers")

Hope this helps.

Hope this he

[mkhach0402]

So I would typically use conditional logic to see this one if I were taking this LSAT. I'd notate the stimulus in the following way:

SGD some FT
SGD some ~FT
SGD ---> ~IWC

(Notation key: SGD = successful graphic designer, FT = formal training, IWC = ignore the wishes of a client)

From those claims we can arrive at two inferences.

Combining the 1st and 3rd premise
FT some ~IWC

In English this says that some were formally trained did not ignore the wishes of a client - which is answer choice (B).

Combining the 2nd and 3rd premise
~FT some ~IWC


!

I'm confused as to how B is the answer because I was under the impression that "some" does not imply "not all" according to the test prep material I'm using. can someone please help?

[Chloe_xxC60]

But I'm kinda confused by D. By the last sentence, doesn't it say: ignore clients wish--> not successful, so countradictive is successful designers--> did not ignore? Since they all are defined in stimulus as SUCCESSFUL, no matter formally trained or not, shouldn't they all did not ignore clients wishes? Hence answer D? Could anyone plz tell me how my reasoning is wrong?

[snoopy]

But I'm kinda confused by D. By the last sentence, doesn't it say: ignore clients wish--> not successful, so countradictive is successful designers--> did not ignore? Since they all are defined in stimulus as SUCCESSFUL, no matter formally trained or not, shouldn't they all did not ignore clients wishes? Hence answer D? Could anyone plz tell me how my reasoning is wrong?

Last sentence says "all successful designers --> ~ignore" so contrapositive is "ignore --> ~not successful designer"

Also, D says "no graphic designers who learned on the job will ignore clients' wishes." It's wrong because it's missing the "successful" part. Also the stimulus says that "a significant number" (some) successful graphic designers learned on the job. You also can't say that not a single graphic designer who learned on job ignored client wishes because the stimulus says some graphic designers who learned informally --> successful which means these folks did not ignore client wishes.