Errata list - Manhattan LSAT 2nd edition LOGICAL REASONING

[timmydoeslsat]

I believe I am understanding your question correctly. If I do not adequately address your problem, please just tell me.

You have given a specific hypothetical above with people and candidate preferences. You do realize that you have given us a hypothetical that can be true with what we are given. Your hypothetical would in fact make B a true statement. But that is simply a could be true situation. Is the hypothetical you posited enough for us to infer that in all situations? Something that is inferrable is something that must be true. Your situation does not have to hold true. It could be true that 3 people prefer A and 2 people prefer B, with all five people having the same concern: child obesity.

From the statements given on page 445, we know only a couple of things:

-More people prefer A to B.

-People prefer A some Budget

-If you prefer B ---> Budget

Do we know for a fact that there is at least one different concern among people that prefer B to A? No. They could all care about the budget.

[nmop_apisdn2]

On page 436, for question 9, the book does not bold the answer choice, as does every other review section.

Was a problem for me, as I am short on time and can only read the reviews for questions that I missed.

[noah]

On page 436, for question 9, the book does not bold the answer choice, as does every other review section.

Was a problem for me, as I am short on time and can only read the reviews for questions that I missed.

Thanks, and sorry for the slow down!

[sumukh09]

Not sure if this one was mentioned yet (or maybe it's not even an error to begin with) but on page 501 you're explaining answer choice A) and showing, using conditional logic, why it's not the correct answer. Moreover, I believe you're trying to show that this wasn't a case of mistaken negation which is the flaw in the stimulus.

In the middle of the page

"In other words, the conditional statement above does NOT imply:

2. -different genera --> -interbreed "

Shouldn't the necessary condition be "interbreed" without the negation sign since we're trying to show a mistaken negation and the original was already negated?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question. Though the book has it right. You're right that we're looking for an argument that commits negated logic. But this answer choice does not. If the second statement had read

2. -different genera --> interbreed

then it would have committed negated logic and would have been the correct answer. We used the fact there was not negated logic to eliminate this answer choice.

Hope that helps!