Q10 - If something would have been

[peg_city]

Where did I go wrong in mapping this one out?

JR->DFP (~)
FP->DFP (~)


Inference
JR->FP

Therefore B
FP(~)->JR(~)

Thanks again

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great work! I think you have a pretty good picture of the statements in the stimulus, but maybe not so much in the question stem.

Notice, this is a Sufficient Assumption question! Your answer is an inference.

Also, the conclusion is a "some" statement, not a conditional statement. Here's how I'd set it up.

JR ---> ~D
-------------
FP some ~D

Assumption:

FP some JR

that takes you to the correct answer (D).

(A) mixes up the terms "forgone pleasures" and "one's pleasures."
(B) mixes up the terms "forgone pleasures that were not desired" and "forgone pleasures" in general.
(C) gets the relationship wrong. We're looking for things that are justifiably regretted.
(E) mixes the terms "forgone pleasures" with simple "pleasures."

Hope that helps, and let me know if you still have a question on this one!

[peg_city]

Great work! I think you have a pretty good picture of the statements in the stimulus, but maybe not so much in the question stem.

Notice, this is a Sufficient Assumption question! Your answer is an inference.

Also, the conclusion is a "some" statement, not a conditional statement. Here's how I'd set it up.

JR ---> ~D
-------------
FP some ~D

Assumption:

FP some JR

that takes you to the correct answer (D).

(A) mixes up the terms "forgone pleasures" and "one's pleasures."
(B) mixes up the terms "forgone pleasures that were not desired" and "forgone pleasures" in general.
(C) gets the relationship wrong. We're looking for things that are justifiably regretted.
(E) mixes the terms "forgone pleasures" with simple "pleasures."

Hope that helps, and let me know if you still have a question on this one!

Thanks

Two questions though.

How did you know the first statement was the conclusion and not the second statement?

Why is it 'FP some JR' and not 'JR some FP'?

Thanks Again.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

How did you know the first statement was the conclusion and not the second statement?

Actually it's the second statement that's the conclusion, not the first. And I know that the second statement is the conclusion from the language cue, "It follows that."

Why is it 'FP some JR' and not 'JR some FP'?

It doesn't matter. Some statements are reversible. If some A's are B's, then it is implied that some B's are A's.

Good questions!

[mcrittell]

How do you know how that the assumption's FP some-->JR, and nor JR--->FP some ?

TIA

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

good question... on Sufficient Assumption questions, they always go with the minimum quantification that allows the conclusion to be drawn.

So ...

JR some FP (some things that would be justifiably regretted are forgone pleasures)
JR ----> FP (anything that would be justifiably regretted is a forgone pleasure)

Since they are both expressing a relationship between things that would be justifiably regretted and forgone pleasures, and while the former is both a sufficient quantification to establish the conclusion and the lesser of the quantifications, go with the former JR some FP.

Makes sense?

[u2manish]

Dear mshermn,

1) Could you please elaborate in that please. I cant seem to follow it. How did u know that the sufficient assumption is JR some FP and Not JR---->FP ? Please help.

2) Is there a comprehensive list somewhere that states sufficient/necessary condition indicators. I know the usual ones listed on the LRB.
Are the following terms imply conditionality: NEVER, WOULD, SHOULD, COULD? If yes, how are they to be treated.

For instance: HOW can Answer choice A and B diagrammed?
This Question is open for all...!
Best,
M

[zee.brad]

Dear mshermn,

1) Could you please elaborate in that please. I cant seem to follow it. How did u know that the sufficient assumption is JR some FP and Not JR---->FP ? Please help.

premise: JR -> -D
conclusion: FP -> -D
Justify formula according to LRB: Answer Choice True -> Conclusion Sound: FP -> JR -> -D ----> FP -> -D

2) Is there a comprehensive list somewhere that states sufficient/necessary condition indicators. I know the usual ones listed on the LRB.

That should be enough I guess

Are the following terms imply conditionality: NEVER, WOULD, SHOULD, COULD? If yes, how are they to be treated.

Depends on the whole sentence contains those words

For instance: HOW can Answer choice A and B diagrammed?
This Question is open for all...!

A. One -> -RP
B. FP -> -JR

Best,
M

[timmydoeslsat]

Dear mshermn,

1) Could you please elaborate in that please. I cant seem to follow it. How did u know that the sufficient assumption is JR some FP and Not JR---->FP ? Please help.

1) What you have posted [JR ---> FP] would not be sufficient in making this a valid argument.

Here is why:


JR ---> ~SD

JR ---> FP
__________________
FP some ~SD


We can then conclude that there is an overlap of ~SD and FP when we actually have JR, but we are not given JR! We need to have JR given to us to be able to conclude that we have that overlap of FP some ~SD (these some statements are reversible).

2) Is there a comprehensive list somewhere that states sufficient/necessary condition indicators. I know the usual ones listed on the LRB.

Taken from Matt's earlier post in another thread:

Sufficient Condition indicators:
if
if only
the only
all
any
each
every
when
whenever
wherever
whoever
whatever
no*

*No A's are B's is notated: A ---> ~B

Necessary Condition Indicators:
only
only when
only if
needs
must
requires
depends on
relies on
necessitates
unless*
until*
except*
cannot... without*

Are the following terms imply conditionality: NEVER, WOULD, SHOULD, COULD? If yes, how are they to be treated.

Context!

Here is an example of two statements:

1) X should be done.

2) If we stop the brigade, then we should rejoice

In terms of diagramming, this too is on context. If we are dealing with an inference question or an assumption question, and you see conditional indicators, then yes diagram. If this is a main conclusion question or an agree/disagree question, then virtually no.

However, on statement 1, I would just keep that in mind while reading, you really gain no benefit by doing this. X ---> Should be done.

However, with statement 2, I would feel that the test writer is driving at something. It is truly conditional.

Stop brigade ---> Should rejoice


All of the words you stated can be diagrammed in the context of a conditional statement. It is all about knowing when it is worth your time and when it is not.

HOW can Answer choice A and B diagrammed?

A) In the context of this stimulus, this would not be of help to diagram into a conditional relationship. One could diagram this as:

One's pleasure ---> ~Should regret

But this is a waste of time in the context of this problem. The should statement in this stimulus is in reference to desire, not regret.

B) FP ~D ---> ~JR

In the context of this stimulus, our goal is to somehow conclude that FP some ~SD.

We see in the premise given that JR ---> ~SD

This answer choice does not give us a should statement, but even if it did, the contrapositive of this answer choice would have been JR ---> FP D

So we have a negated necessary condition whereas the premise did not. This will not work.

[vakilzi195]

Hi,

Can you please show step by step how (D) is the right answer?

This is how I did it

JR --> ~Desired

FP---> ~Desired

Therefore, by inference, JR --> FP (equal or arrow? -which is more appropriate)

Its the same as FP---> JR (Since A = B is same as B =A)

[Crogati]

Is the Some JR are not D inference akin to a quantity inference?


All things justifiably regretted are not Desired.

Inference: Some things justifiably regretted are not forgone pleasures
-----------
Therefore, Some forgone pleasures are not Desired

So, this argument follows the overlap quantity pattern:
A are not B.
Therefore, Some C are not B.
And it follows that, Some A are not C?

[WaltGrace1983]

Is the Some JR are not D inference akin to a quantity inference?


All things justifiably regretted are not Desired.

Inference: Some things justifiably regretted are not forgone pleasures
-----------
Therefore, Some forgone pleasures are not Desired

So, this argument follows the overlap quantity pattern:
A are not B.
Therefore, Some C are not B.
And it follows that, Some A are not C?

Unless I am mistaken, I don't think your "inference" is valid.

Here is what we know:

JR → ~D
-----------
(some) FP → ~D

Just because we conclude that (some) FP are ~D does not really mean anything. A conclusion is not a fact, it is something that we have to prove, not something that is already proven.

However, if we put (D) in there:

JR → ~D
(some) FP → JR

The only thing we know for certain is the conclusion, that there are (some) FP's that are also ~D. That is why this works as the sufficient assumption.

Just because some things ARE doesn't mean that some things AREN'T.

[WaltGrace1983]

Here is how I solved this problem:

JR → ~D
----------
(some) FP → ~D

We are looking for an assumption that basically says that there are (some) FP's that are JR.

(A) If it is a P (pleasure), then that means it must be a FP (a type of pleasure). From a conditional standpoint, (A) is saying: P → ~R (~regret). However, ~R also means ~JR (because JR is a subset of R, if you are R you automatically are JR).

In other words, (A) is basically saying: FP → ~JR. However, we cannot do anything with ~JR. We need to conclude JR.

(B) JR → ~FP or D. We know that it is D. However, is it ~FP? We don't know!

However, you could probably also solve this by simply saying that we don't know anything about FP's that are ~D. After all, that is our conclusion! We need to prove it!

(C) D & R → FP. We don't know anything about things that are just regretted, just that if you should desire something then it is NOT justifiably regretted.

(E) ~D → P. But what kind of pleasures?

[mkd000]

MLSAT geeks, please provide feedback:

alternative possible correct answer choices would be:

FP --> some JR (but not JR some --> FP)
all FP --> JR

is this correct?!

[maryadkins]

Because we just need some FP to be JR, saying that some JRs are FPs does the same thing. So the first part of what you wrote, and the last part, are both correct:

FP --> some JR

all FP --> JR

Because in both of these, some JR are FPs.

But this part, if I'm interpreting you correctly as saying that it WOULDN'T be sufficient to say "Some JR are FP," is not correct:

(but not JR some --> FP)

Saying some JR are FP would still be correct.

[stacksdoe]

Just want to throw my two cents out there since I missed this one (though I'm confident it was an oversight, if I make an oversight I definitely do not want it to be on assumption questions):
I understand from the above discussion that the core is as follows:
JR---> ~D therefore FP is ~D
clearly, this leads to answer choice D, and its pretty predictable. There is no way around this, for FP to be ~D, some of FP, or more or less (all the same) have to be JR.
Here is how I drew it up: O--> JR-->~D therefore many FP= ~D
This also leads to the correct answer choice. However, my diagram seems more precise then what has been offered thus far (I try to stay away from diagram unless it's absolutely necessary,and when I do, I try to break the argument down as much as I can so I don't miss anything)
But looking back after some time, I see that my diagram reads that every time something occurs it is justifiably regretted, instead of what the argument actually states, which is: If JR then --D. Just got thrown of by the language.
One reason I got this wrong is that I mis-labled the question stem as a necessary assumption, which it clearly is not, but even with that being said, as I hope to show, the correct answer should and can still be had. My next question is, let us assume the question stem wanted a necessary assumption, what would that look like?
Many forgone pleasures are regrettable, or what about, some things that occur are forgone pleasures..?
what say you..? I'm leaning more towards the second one.
any and all feedback is welcomed with alacrity

[stacksdoe]

No responses yet! very interesting..!
For any folks who are alive out there, pleasure your thoughts about the above and below:
This is from an actually Manhattan Prep book, just to stir up different POV's :
I'll list three excerpts and give me a possible sufficient assumption and a possible necessary assumption (2-5 each). I'll also include mine before I submit ones that the book provides in a day or two but no more:

1. Studies have shown that private tutoring is an effective approach for learning a second language. Thus, private tutoring is a fun way to learn a second language.

2. Of the twenty-five movies released this year, only the three highest rated movies (first being the highest rating) of the year will be eligible for the award. Therefore, the movie Darkness will not be eligible for the award.

3. The monthly revenue for the Chad's Burger Shack was higher in July than it was in April. Thus, Chad's Burger Shack must have sold more burgers in July than in April.

4. An automatic bell above the front doors rings whenever a customer enters the front of the Town Convenience Store. Therefore, one can accurately determine the number of customers who enter Town Convenience Store on any given day simply by counting the number of rings from the front door bell?

3-5 necessary assumption, and 3-5 sufficient assumption: what say you ?

[stacksdoe]

Bear with me:
1)
Necessary Assumption:
• A fun way to learn a 2nd language is also an effective way to learn it.
• It is a necessary that private tutoring is a fun way to learn a second language because it is also an effective way to learn a second language.
• If private tutoring is not fun then it is not an effective means to learn a second language.
Sufficient Assumption:
• An effective approach to learning a send language is also a fun way to learn a second language
• If private tutoring is a fan way to learn a second language, then it is because it is an effective approach
• Anything that is effective to learn a second language is also fun

2)
Necessary Assumption:
• Darkness was not among the three highest rated movies released this year
• Darkness was among the lowest rated movies this year out of all the possible 25 spots
• Darkness was so terrible that it did not even garner a ranking

Sufficient Assumption:
• “Darkness” was not among the top three highest ranking film this year
• If “Darkness” is eligible for an award it would be due to its ranking in the top three spot
• Any movie that is eligible for an award is ranking among the top movies this year
• “Darkness” ranked amongst the lowest – less than top 10-- movies this year

Soon I will post the correct answers to the first two arguments I presented!

any ideas....