Q9 - We know that if life existed on the Moon, there would b

[aabishoor]

I had orginally chosen (E), then figured answer choice (A) technically does the same thing without using an "OR" statement. (A) seemed to be saying if S, then T. ~T, therefore ~S. At first this seemed off just because the stimulus states that "the" spy is a traitor, rather than "a spy" but after diagraming it, I thought it actually seemed to parrallel the argument well. Any reasoning as to why (A) is more fitting than (E)?

Edit: after considering it further, I realized that if (A) had stated that there has been no indication of the general being a spy (or somehitng similar to that), rather than "we don't know that the general is a spy" it would parallel the argument more.

[ohthatpatrick]

Your edit makes a lot of sense, although the other thing missing, structurally, from (A) is a conditional statement.

You expressed it as "if spy, then traitor". Is that first sentence conditional? It sounds like a statement of fact to me.

The spy is a traitor.

When we say "The US president is Barack Obama", we COULD say "if you're the US President, then you're Barack Obama", but that's sort of pointlessly forcing a conditional on a straight-up fact.

==== COMPLETE EXPLANATION ====

Question type: Match the Reasoning

Argument Core:
conclusion
There has never been life on the Moon

evidence
If there had been life, there would be signs of life there.
But in the numerous times we've been there, we've seen no signs.

ANALYSIS
There are two premises:
1. conditional ... if A were true --> B would be true
2. statement of fact (evidence so far does not indicate B)

Conclusion is certain:
A is false.

== answer choices ==
(A) Close enough to keep on first pass, although there is no conditional.

(B) 2nd ingredient isn't quite right, should be "what we've learned so far indicates that there's mayo in the fridge". Conclusion needs to be certain. This is just "unlikely". Eliminate.

(C) Multiple problems but easiest to spot quickly is that conclusion is not certain, so ditch it.

(D) It does start with a conditional, "If A is true, then ... "
But it concludes that A is true. The original concluded that A is false.

(E) Starts with a conditional. 2nd premise says that existing evidence does not indicate B. Concludes that A is false.

DOWN TO 2
(A) and (E) are the closest.

The concern with (E) is that the original conditional was
A --> B
whereas the one in (E) is
A ---> B or C

But the concern with (A) is that it doesn't even have a conditional.

The other difference relates to the 2nd premise. In the original argument, we're saying "we've been the Moon numerous times ... we've collected data ... and we still haven't found evidence of B".

(E) also has "we've collected data ... and we still haven't found evidence of B."

(A) doesn't indicate that we have possession of any data about the general.

The original argument and (E) are actually more reasonable arguments than (A) is. All three are flawed in the sense that their conclusions are overly certain.

But at least with the original and with (E), we're going off some data. With (A), we're going off total ignorance.

Thus, (E) is a stronger match and the correct answer.

[728610]

in A, "spy is a trator " looks like a conditional, what do you think?

I had orginally chosen (E), then figured answer choice (A) technically does the same thing without using an "OR" statement. (A) seemed to be saying if S, then T. ~T, therefore ~S. At first this seemed off just because the stimulus states that "the" spy is a traitor, rather than "a spy" but after diagraming it, I thought it actually seemed to parrallel the argument well. Any reasoning as to why (A) is more fitting than (E)?

Edit: after considering it further, I realized that if (A) had stated that there has been no indication of the general being a spy (or somehitng similar to that), rather than "we don't know that the general is a spy" it would parallel the argument more.

[ohthatpatrick]

As I wrote in my earlier post, would you consider this a conditional statement?
"The President of the US is Barack Obama"

I would not. It sounds like a specific statement of fact.

It is possible for a sentence that takes the form of "A is B" to be conditional, but you don't need to force that on every use of the verb "to be".

The statement "Karen is eating lunch right now" could be
Karen --> eating lunch right now
but no one would naturally have thought of that statement as anything more than a fact.

Statements like "Lying is wrong" feel more like conditionals, because they sounds more like universals.
you lie --> you did something wrong

[elila]

I'm not sure why everyone has even discussed A as a contender but my reasoning behind eliminating it is because parallel reasoning questions are their own type and require their own strategy. Easy parallel questions like number 9 are straight forward in reasoning and keep their conclusions tight, as in this case "no evidence of life, therefore no life." Your job is to find an argument that has the same conclusion in the answer (no evidence-no existence). A doesn't even come close. If a spy is a traitor and we don't know if the General is a traitor and now we're concluding he is not a spy, what does that have to do with our no evidence=no existence conclusion? I find that the authors were so kind at giving such an obvious wrong answer that it should be working to your favor not against you in eliminating wrong answer choices.
The "trickiest" answer here was maybe D which had a "yes evidence- it does exist" conclusion. However the lsat doesn't create a positive relationship in the answer choices unless you're around number 20-25 and even then it will be about the contrapositive of the conclusion not a whole new positive conclusion.

[LukeM22]

I understand the rationale for why B is wrong ("unlikely" vs. "definitely not"), but the reason why I eliminated E is because the structure is _slightly_ different. If A, then B; no --> no A vs. If A, then B+C; no B+C--> no A.

I swear I've seen that minute structural difference be sufficient grounds for eliminating wrong answers in the past, so, going forward, is the language/conviction/strength of the conclusion more important than the structure? Just trying to figure out what to prioritize. Thanks,

[ohthatpatrick]

It's just "best available answer" always.

If you're willing to argue in court that (B) is a better answer than (E), then pick it.

As indicated in the original explanation, there are TWO problems with (B):
- the 2nd premise sucks (it should say "there's no indication of mayo / no signs of mayo" ... rather than "the fridge is almost empty")
and
- the conclusion is not sure of itself

The structural dissimilarity that (E) has would be a concern, if there were a better answer. If an answer replicated the logic of (E) without adding in the unnecessary either/or, we'd certainly prefer that answer choice.

[OceanD266]

Spy `culture` is going massive.
Even on lockdown in 2020 people can watch for other people with the help of whatsapp spy tool
Like in old Korn song - `No place to hide`.
We are all under a big roof.