PT48, S4, Q22 If there is an election...

[elizv]

Help please! What is the best way to approach this monster?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question!

This problem is heavily developed through formal logic and while I will depend on it to help me through this, I want to simplify this problem as much as possible.

You are being asked to parallel the structure of the argument.

When I look at the argument this is what I see

E --> V or ~V
V --> SI
~V --> ~RC
Therefore: E --> SI or ~RC

E = election
V = vote
~V = not vote
SI = satisfaction of influence
~RC = no right to complain

I need an answer to match this organization. one thing leading to one of two other things, and each of those two other things, leading to two further different things. a leads to b or c, b leads to d, c leads to e, so a leads to d or e

(A) the problem with this answer lies in the conclusion. the first sentence matches the argument above perfectly fine, but in order for this to be the correct answer the conclusion should read... "So, when you rent a car, you are either covered or are personally liable for any costs from an accident."

(B) the problem with this answer choice is in the information before you get to the conclusion. It says that if you go for a walk you will either feel relaxed or not. it goes on to tell you what happens if you feel relaxed, but it fails to create an "if ... then" statement that tells you what happens if you don't feel relaxed.

(C) I can tell that this answer is incorrect as it begins the second sentence. The first sentence says that if you attend school, you will find the courses stimulating or you will not. For this to be the right answer I need it to go on to tell me what happens if you find the courses stimulating and what happens if you don't. Unfortunately, this argument doesn't give us that information.

(D) This is the correct answer as all the points line up accurately.

(E) This answer is the closest of the incorrect answer choices, and the reason why it is wrong is very subtle, but the conclusion does not match that in the argument above. The conclusion reads that either manufacturers are efficient or they should be fined, when it should read... If manufactures use a natural resource, the resource will either last much longer or the manufacturer should be fined. The most important thing about this answer choice, is that the conclusion does not make sure that we are talking about manufacturers who are using natural resources.

[elizv]

Your very clear answer immediately cured my headache. Thank you!