- Effective --> Support
The independent candidate: ~Support
Thus, ~Effective
- So far this is a valid argument. It is just a premise, then the contrapositive. Good. One might note that "independent" does not necessarily ensure "~Support" though.
Q:
- Support
--> Effective
The problem with Q is that he confuses the necessary condition (one needs support) for a sufficient condition (support ensures effectiveness). This is a very common LSAT flaw.
(A) There is no contradiction. Eliminate.
(B) This would actually be more of a flaw for P's argument. Eliminate.
(C) I don't need a definition for "effective," and I definitely don't need a PRECISE definition.
(D) Q doesn't necessarily believe this. Q seems to the think the opposite way, conditionally of course.
(E) Perfect. In other words, Q confuses the necessary with the sufficient.