Hi there,
Can someone please help us with the formal logic chains with this one? I am struggling with them a bit, Not everyone in particular(B) and (C).
Thanks
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- u2manish
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 24
- Joined: November 03rd, 2011
-
- giladedelman
-
Thanks Received: 833
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 619
- Joined: April 04th, 2010
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q25 - Essayist: Every contract negotiator..
Sure!
So the stimulus is telling us three things:
contract negotiator --> been lied to
lie to someone --> practicing deception
been lied to --> has lied to someone else
If we just switch the order, we can chain these together:
contract negotiator --> been lied to --> has lied to someone --> has practiced deception
So if you're a contract negotiator, you must have practiced deception. That's why (A) is correct.
(B) is not a conditional statement. It says not everyone practicing deception is lying. In other words, some people practicing deception are not lying. But we don't know that. We know that everyone who is lying is practicing deception. Is the reverse also true? Maybe, maybe not.
(C) is actually directly contradicted by the stimulus, which says that everyone who is lying is practicing deception. This answer says NOT everyone who is lying is practicing deception, i.e., SOME people who are lying are not practicing deception. (Again, this is not a conditional statement.)
(D) is out because we don't know anything about liars except that they practice deception.
(E) is just a reversal of the third conditional statement. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not; we can't infer it.
Does that answer your question?
So the stimulus is telling us three things:
contract negotiator --> been lied to
lie to someone --> practicing deception
been lied to --> has lied to someone else
If we just switch the order, we can chain these together:
contract negotiator --> been lied to --> has lied to someone --> has practiced deception
So if you're a contract negotiator, you must have practiced deception. That's why (A) is correct.
(B) is not a conditional statement. It says not everyone practicing deception is lying. In other words, some people practicing deception are not lying. But we don't know that. We know that everyone who is lying is practicing deception. Is the reverse also true? Maybe, maybe not.
(C) is actually directly contradicted by the stimulus, which says that everyone who is lying is practicing deception. This answer says NOT everyone who is lying is practicing deception, i.e., SOME people who are lying are not practicing deception. (Again, this is not a conditional statement.)
(D) is out because we don't know anything about liars except that they practice deception.
(E) is just a reversal of the third conditional statement. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not; we can't infer it.
Does that answer your question?
-
- brianabbott1987
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 2
- Joined: August 09th, 2016
Re: Q25 - Essayist: Every contract negotiator..
The Stim
contract negotiator -> been lied to
lies to anyone -> practicing deception
been lied to -> lied to someone (logically same as lies to anyone)
You can chain these up to.
contract negotiator -> been lied to -> lied to someone -> practices deception
Answer Choice A
contract negotiator -> practices deception
This Must Be True. If you are a contract negotiator you automatically are practicing deception. Compare it to the chain above (sufficient condition triggers necessary condition).
Answer Choice B
What this answer choice is saying is that not every single person in the practices deception group has lied to someone. This is a Could Be True and the question asks for a Must Be True.
If you don't understand why it is a Could Be True look at the chain above. A possibility is selecting lied to someone as your sufficient which would trigger practices deception. It is logically possible for all of those practicing deception to have lied to someone. Because a violation of the answer choice is a logical possibility this answer is Could Be True and is incorrect.
contract negotiator -> been lied to
lies to anyone -> practicing deception
been lied to -> lied to someone (logically same as lies to anyone)
You can chain these up to.
contract negotiator -> been lied to -> lied to someone -> practices deception
Answer Choice A
contract negotiator -> practices deception
This Must Be True. If you are a contract negotiator you automatically are practicing deception. Compare it to the chain above (sufficient condition triggers necessary condition).
Answer Choice B
What this answer choice is saying is that not every single person in the practices deception group has lied to someone. This is a Could Be True and the question asks for a Must Be True.
If you don't understand why it is a Could Be True look at the chain above. A possibility is selecting lied to someone as your sufficient which would trigger practices deception. It is logically possible for all of those practicing deception to have lied to someone. Because a violation of the answer choice is a logical possibility this answer is Could Be True and is incorrect.
3 posts Page 1 of 1