Q22 - The only preexisting recordings

[mleeker]

This seems like a straight forward question, yet I'm having trouble ruling out (C). The author reasons that most jazz songs will not make it to CD's because few are played on the radio. So therefore, the ones played on the radio are songs that are believed to be profitable, right?

This one is seriously messing with my head, because I feel like it should be easy. Thanks for the help as always!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question! I see what you mean about this question seeming easy: it's a pretty straightforward argument with a pretty easily identifiable flaw. The way LSAC makes it difficult is by making the answers a little harder to interpret.

So let's break down this argument. It looks as though we've got two premises leading to the conclusion:

Premise: Only recordings believed to be profitable are transferred to compact disc.
Premise: Few classic jazz recordings are played on the radio.

Conclusion: Most classic jazz recordings will not be transferred to compact disc.

(By the way, as a jazz musician, this question breaks my heart.)

The assumption is pretty clear: if it's not played on the radio, record companies don't believe it will sell profitably.

(E) expresses that assumption, because we could translate it into this conditional statement:

not played on radio -----> record companies don't believe profitable

(C) looks tempting, but when we convert it into a conditional statement, we get something a little different:

played on the radio -----> record companies believe profitable

Well, that looks similar, right? But wait: that's just a negated form of the proper assumption, which doesn't help us. In other words, the argument depends on an assumption about records that are not played on the radio. This answer only tells us about records that are played on the radio. But just because records that are on the radio sell profitably, that doesn't mean records that aren't on the radio won't sell profitably! So this answer is actually out of scope with respect to the core.


As for the other answer choices:

(A) is out of scope. We're not interested in the proportion of transferred recordings that are classic jazz, we're interested in the proportion of classic jazz recordings that will be transferred.

(B) is out of scope. The argument is about whether the recordings will even get transferred to compact disc, not about whether those compact discs will be played on the radio.

(D) is way out of scope. The argument doesn't have anything to do with "preserving classic jazz." The premise establishes the criteria by which record companies decide whether to transfer a recording to compact disc.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[c.s.sun5]

I got stuck on this question too, and what I can't seem to get my head around is the way they phrased (E). How did you translate or even interpret the No in the beginning of the sentence coupled with the not played on the radio section? The double negatives confuse me a lot. How did you get the conditional:

not played on radio -----> record companies don't believe profitable

[jrany12]

Could someone please explain how to logically diagram this stimulus out? And how the missing assumption fits in? I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out why (E) is better than (C).

Does the argument depend on an assumption about records that are NOT played on the radio because it says "FEW jazz recordings are played on the radio"? Few meaning close to none? Is that how to assess these kinds of assumptions, if there's a degree of negativity in the conclusion, then so should the assumption?

Is this correct?
(CD=transferred to cd; P=profitable; CJ=classic jazz recordings; PR=played on radio)

Premise1: CD--->P (~P-->~CD) contra in parenthesis
Premise2: CJ--->~PR (PR--->~CJ)
Concl: CJ--->~CD (CD--->~CJ)

1. (CD--->~CJ), so P-->~CJ combine Concl contra w/ Premise1
2. (PR-->~CJ) premise2 contra from above
3. P---->PR Conclusion from above two, which is ultimately the assumption.
This is the only way I could get this assumption..I couldn't use the words "few" or "most" as in the stimulus.

Please correct or clarify my mistakes! Thank you!!

[bbirdwell]

I think what you did totally works. It's tough to use "few" and "most" in conditional logic, but it's possible. Here's one way you might do that:

1. CD --> P
2. few CJ --> radio
C: most CJ --> ~CD

You can take #2 and alter the "few" to match the "most" in the conclusion:
3. most CJ --> ~radio

Since that statement is used as support for the conclusion, I can say:
C2: most CJ not radio --> ~CD

At this point I make use of the contrapositive of #1:
~P --> ~CD

If I want to logically draw the conclusion, then (as worded in C2), I need "not radio --> ~P" to bridge the gap.

This is what (E) does, though the double negative makes it difficult to interpret. Notice how (C) has the correct elements, but puts them in the reverse conditional relationship.

So, good job. Does that help?

[unmrkny]

Hi Brian!

I was in the June LSAT study group (Sundays) where you and Noah came and taught us basic RC skills. Thanks for the session and hope we see you guys soon again.

I have a question on this one. So (C) has all correct elements and relations. "the only recordings that are played on the radio are ones that record companies believe can be profitably sold as compact discs". Since "The only" indicates it's a necessary clause:

profit ->radio

which is contrapositive of (E) ~radio->~profit

I thought contrapositive of any conditional statement is also a correct answer. (if the original statement is correct) This is not true for this type of question which I believe is a justify question?

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi unmrkny! If you don't mind I'll take this question.

"the only" actually introduces a sufficient condition. Here are a few more examples that are all close, but that you should pay attention to.

Sufficient: the only, if only, if
Necessary: only, only if, only when

So answer choice (C) is actually the reversal, not the contrapositive!

Does that answer your question?

[zainrizvi]

I got stuck on this question too, and what I can't seem to get my head around is the way they phrased (E). How did you translate or even interpret the No in the beginning of the sentence coupled with the not played on the radio section? The double negatives confuse me a lot. How did you get the conditional:

not played on radio -----> record companies don't believe profitable

same problem here, can anyone go step by step on how to diagram that?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure, happy to work on this with you guys... The word "no" can be an organizational tool, but not always. Check out the following examples:

1. No computers are cheap.
2. Those who have computer training have no difficulty finding employment.

When it's used as a quantifier (1st example), then it can be used to establish a conditional relationship.

1. Computer ---> ~Cheap

When it's used to describe a state of being (2nd example), then it implies the negation of a term.

2. CT ---> ~DFE

CT = computer training, DFE = difficulty finding employment

In the current example, it's used as a quantifier. The difficult and tricky thing is that when it's used as a quantifier, the negation applies to the necessary condition, not to the sufficient one. So for example:

No A's are B's.

Can be written:

A ---> ~B

And in this case... "No recording that is not played on the radio is one that record companies believe would be profitable if transferred to compact disc."

The "no" applies to the necessary condition, so we could rephrase this to say, "if a recording in not played on the radio, then it is not one that record companies believe would be profitable if transferred to compact disc."

~Radio ---> ~Profitable

And by contrapositive we could say, "if a record is one that record companies believe would be profitable if transferred to compact disc, then it is played on the radio."

Does that answer your question?

[db_8400]

This question was quite tricky, but after reading it a few times I was wondering if my thought process was correct.

The conclusion itself indicates that " MOST jazz recordings WILL NOT be transferred onto compact disc, b/c FEW classic jazz recordings are played on the radio."

Well since a FEW recordings are being played on the radio does that particular statement make answer (E) correct? B/c it says "NO recording that is not played on the radio is one that record companies believe would be profitable....".

I picked E bc of that. It does say few jazz recordings ARE PLAYED and the assumption is that if it is not played on the radio, RC believe it would be profitable... " Therefore since it is played on the radio Jazz cannot be profitable. Can this reasoning be correct ?

[deedubbew]

You said that J --few--> R can be turned into J --most--> ~R.
However, why can't this be used to make (C) work? I.e.

Premise: J--few-->R
+
Answer C: R-->P
= J--few-->P
Then, turning J--few-->P to J--most-->~P
+
~P-->~CD
=J--most-->~CD

I think what you did totally works. It's tough to use "few" and "most" in conditional logic, but it's possible. Here's one way you might do that:

1. CD --> P
2. few CJ --> radio
C: most CJ --> ~CD

You can take #2 and alter the "few" to match the "most" in the conclusion:
3. most CJ --> ~radio

Since that statement is used as support for the conclusion, I can say:
C2: most CJ not radio --> ~CD

At this point I make use of the contrapositive of #1:
~P --> ~CD

If I want to logically draw the conclusion, then (as worded in C2), I need "not radio --> ~P" to bridge the gap.

This is what (E) does, though the double negative makes it difficult to interpret. Notice how (C) has the correct elements, but puts them in the reverse conditional relationship.

So, good job. Does that help?

[aryehkln94]

Sure, happy to work on this with you guys... The word "no" can be an organizational tool, but not always. Check out the following examples:

1. No computers are cheap.
2. Those who have computer training have no difficulty finding employment.

When it's used as a quantifier (1st example), then it can be used to establish a conditional relationship.

1. Computer ---> ~Cheap

When it's used to describe a state of being (2nd example), then it implies the negation of a term.

2. CT ---> ~DFE

CT = computer training, DFE = difficulty finding employment

In the current example, it's used as a quantifier. The difficult and tricky thing is that when it's used as a quantifier, the negation applies to the necessary condition, not to the sufficient one. So for example:

No A's are B's.

Can be written:

A ---> ~B

And in this case... "No recording that is not played on the radio is one that record companies believe would be profitable if transferred to compact disc."

The "no" applies to the necessary condition, so we could rephrase this to say, "if a recording in not played on the radio, then it is not one that record companies believe would be profitable if transferred to compact disc."

~Radio ---> ~Profitable

And by contrapositive we could say, "if a record is one that record companies believe would be profitable if transferred to compact disc, then it is played on the radio."

Does that answer your question?

Hey so I got everything you said but would u be able to help me out with answer choice (E), how would I know that the "if" is not introducing a sufficient condition?

[fadams]

Transferred -> profitable
NOT profitable (A)-> not transferred (B)

Therefore
Most jazz will not be transferred (jazz(C) –m-> not transferred(B))
Because few jazz are played on the radios

So usually, you’d link
Jazz (C)-> not profitable (A). But notice that there is a most. So we can’t.

A->B
____
C-m->B

C-m->A->B would yield C-m->B
So we need C-m->A

But there is the addition premise that few jazz are played on the radio
Meaning most jazz are not played on the radio
Jazz-m->not played (D)

So we have as premises:
A->B
C-m->D
______
C-m->B

A = not profitable
B = not transferred
C = jazz
D = not played

Just like above, to yield C-m->B
You need to connect
C-m->D->A->B to yield C-m->B

And you can see that D->A is the missing link that guarantees the conclusion
If not played -> not profitable; profitable requires play

A. Seems like they have this the other way around. It says that few that are believed to be profitable are jazz. But knowing what kind of CDs are profitable and not doesn’t link anything to the our specific concern with JAZZ
B. Few jazz are on radio misses the idea of profit. Not being profitable is sufficient for not being transferred, but we still want to connect this to the idea of not being played on the radio, because that is also used as a support for the conclusion
C. The only ones played are ones that are believed to be profitable. This is both too strong, and it is an attempt at contrapositive.
D. What record companies are interested it in is irrelevant
E. No recording that is not played on the radio is one that is believed to be profitable if transferred;
If transferred, recording that is played on the radio is one that is believed to be profitable