A general question in regards to flaw questions

[ericha3535]

Hello and I have a question about flaw questions.

I am fairly good at diagramming the conditional statements, which frequently shown up in flaw questions.

For example, prep 53 section 1 #18,
this argument is diagrammable.

Success -> strong client base
Spent 3 years -> strong client base
---
Success -> spent 3 years

Basically this argument is flawed because the author confused necessary/sufficient of the second premise.

Now, a long ago well not that long ago, but LSAT authors often used those specific terms "sufficient/necessary" in the ACs to make them more... umm identifiable.

However, now they no longer do that because it's too easy??

I am not sure.

I get pissed off all the time because I could identify the flaw but cannot identify the correct answer choice...

Could someone help me out with this kind of issue?

Maybe the correct AC choice, when diagrammed, contradicts the original argument or something?

Please help!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

What you're describing is a subtle phenomenon I've noticed as well with newer tests: the argument we read seems like a very familiar pattern (and it IS) ... however, there isn't any answer choice that sounds like what we were expecting.

LSAT loves to test our flexible thinking, particularly in the toughest 13-21 range of LR.

We have to often make peace with an answer we didn't initially like, because we find that the other four are broken somewhat flagrantly.

Make sure you're willing to be a flexible thinker in that territory. It feels good when you steal one of these "Bait-n-Switch" problems.

In terms of other ways to describe a Necessary-Sufficient flaw, there are several options.

Let's have a sample argument we can refer to:
Anyone who insults Betty becomes one of her mortal enemies. Since Jack has never insulted anyone, he must not be one of Betty's mortal enemies.

p1: Insults --> Mortal Enemy
P2: Bob = ~Insults
Conc: Bob = ~Mortal Enemy

1. The Old Traditional
(A) treats an action that is sufficient to produce a certain outcome as though it is necessary to produce that outcome

2. The Paraphrases
(A) confuses something that ensures a result with something required to produce that result.
(B) mistakes a condition that guarantees a certain result for the only condition that can bring about that result

3. The "Just Describe What Happened"
(A) takes for granted that someone not insulting Betty establishes that someone is not Betty's mortal enemy
(B) infers that something is not the case from the absence of a condition that proves something is the case

4. The "Exploit the Faulty Conditional the author imagined"
(A) fails to consider that people who don't insult Betty could still be her mortal enemy
(B) ignores the possibility that there could be other actions that result in being someones mortal enemy.

Those are the only ways that come to mind for how they might describe Nec/Suff, but, as I said, I'll be looking out for something new on the next test.

Hope this helps.

[ericha3535]

Hello Patrick
And I really thank you for your response. It’s so great and it seems as if you have listed almost every possible ways for LSAC to describe sufficient/necessary flaw.
I have come to realize after studying this test for a while, that understanding "what’s there" is so important vs understanding "what I think it’s there."

I’ve read your responses a numerous times. Let me try to paraphrase what each of the way is actually saying (just to make sure):

Based on the argument that you have given, the unwarranted assumption that the author made was Mortal enemy -> Insult (which is mistaken reversal of the second premise).

Bob -> ~Insults
Insult -> Mortal enemy
--
Bob -> ~Mortal enemy

1. The Old Traditional
(A) treats an action that is sufficient to produce a certain outcome as though it is necessary to produce that outcome

A pretty standard answer. I fully understand what this is saying.

2. The Paraphrases
(A) confuses something that ensures a result with something required to produce that result.

A pretty standard answer. I fully understand what this is saying.

(B) mistakes a condition that guarantees a certain result for the only condition that can bring about that result

So basically, the condition referring to "guarantee a certain result" is the sufficient condition whereas the condition referring to something that "brings about that result" is necessary?

3. The "Just Describe What Happened"
(A) takes for granted that someone not insulting Betty establishes that someone is not Betty's mortal enemy

This answer choice describes the contrapositive of the unwarranted assumption that the author made.

(B) infers that something is not the case from the absence of a condition that proves something is the case

I was actually confused by this answer choice. At first, it sounded like it was describing the "absence of evidence" flaw. But as far as I am concerned, I think it’s saying that: infers or concludes that Bob is not a mortal enemy even though there is no sufficient condition that guarantees so.

(B) ignores the possibility that there could be other actions that result in being someones mortal enemy.

I am totally confused by this one. Could you elaborate?

Thank you so much!

[chike_eze]

Hello Patrick

(B) ignores the possibility that there could be other actions that result in being someones mortal enemy.

I am totally confused by this one. Could you elaborate?

Thank you so much!

This is another way of saying just because X guarantees Y, i.e., X --> Y, does not mean some other condition is not also sufficient to guarantee Y,
e.g., Z --> Y, A --> Y etc.

For example, I want to buy a pound of fuji apples at the local grocery store. A pound of fuji apples cost $5.00. If I have sufficient money, I will buy 1 pound of fuji apples from the grocery store.

Alas! I have $5.00 in my pocket, therefore I will buy the pound of fuji apples.

Question: What else is sufficient?
- $6.50 in my pocket --> buy 1 pound of apples
- I found $10 on the street --> buy 1 pound of apples
- Brother loaned me $8 --> buy 1 pound of apples

Therefore, the fact that I don't have $5, it is not sufficient to claim that I will not purchase the pound of apples. What if I have $6, $20, $100 ??