Conditional Reasoning Question

[zhang621]

I am a little confused about this one.
"If Sarah were a concert pianist for a major Orchestra, she would be famous. She is not a concert pianist since she is not famous."
Is this right or wrong?
I think it is wrong because it didn't state the "major Orchestra" part in the second sentence.
So, the contrapositive statement would be right if the question stem becomes "she is not a concert pianist for a major Orchestra since she is not famous. Am I right?
Or the reason it is wrong because the author does not condsider that Sarah could be a concert pianist with a minor Orchestra, which means didn't consider all the possible conditions in making the conditional reasoning.
Hope you could answer this question for me. Thank you so much

[christine.defenbaugh]

Very interesting question, zhang621!

The statement is absolutely wrong. But let's talk about why!

"If Sarah were a concert pianist for a major Orchestra, she would be famous. She is not a concert pianist since she is not famous."

This argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise-conditional: If Sarah were major-orch-concert-pianist --> Famous
[contrapositive]: If Sarah is NOT famous --> NOT major-orch-concert-pianist
Premise-fact: Sarah is NOT famous
Conclusion-fact: Sarah is NOT a concert pianist.

If the conclusion had been instead: Sarah is not a major-orchestra-concert-pianist, this argument would be air-tight. The argument fails to consider that Sarah might be a concert pianist but NOT for a major orchestra! If she were, then the conditional rule would still be upheld, but conclusion would be bogus.

So, both of your proposed reasons are on target. As a general matter, this argument is flawed in that the conclusion fails to pick up the 'major orchestra' qualifier to what Sarah can't be. And specifically, that means that the author has failed to consider the possibility that Sarah could be a concert pianist for any number of other things: minor orchestras, chamber music societies, renaissance festival ensembles, circuses, etc. Maybe she's a concert pianist who plays solo?

The fact that the author has failed to consider the possibility that Sarah could be a concert pianist for a minor orchestra is just one facet to the overarching flaw.

Does that make sense?

Now, one word of warning. This does not appear to be a real LSAT question. It's perfectly fine (and a good idea) to use things like this as exercises to hone your formal logic skills. But be wary of any over-reliance on 'faux LSAT questions'. They have a different flavor than real LSAT questions, and after you've practiced your formal logic skills with drills and exercises, you want to apply that knowledge to genuine LSAT questions as much as possible.

Please let me know if this completely answered your question!