Q12 - Rosen: One cannot prepare a

[jrany12]

Can someone please explain why A is the answer over any of the others? I chose E.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post!

In this inference question, we have a bunch of statements that clearly chain together:

good meal --> not bad food --> not bad soil --> good farming --> culture that values proper maintenance of resources so that supplies are available.

So if we follow the chain all the way, we can infer that a good meal depends on having the right cultural values and on having the right supply of resources.

(A) is therefore correct: the creation of a good meal depends on natural conditions, that is, supplies of resources, and on cultural conditions, that is, a culture that values the maintenance of its resources.

(B) is tempting, but it's a generalization. Good soil can't be maintained without good farming, but we don't know that that's true of natural resources in general.

(C) is reversed. Good farming is a prerequisite of good soil.

(D) is sort of reversed, in that good meals require the right values, not vice versa. It's also a generalization, because we're talking about good meals, not good cuisine, and about a certain type of cultural values, not "good" values generally.

(E) is also reversed logic. We know that for food to be good, you need to have good soil, which in turn requires good farming, but it doesn't follow that if food is bad, it's because you don't have those things. You could have these conditions in place but still end up with bad food for other reasons, e.g., invasive parasites.

Does that clear this one up?

[jessncho]

For answer (C), I don't understand how this is reversed logic. Doesn't Good Soil --> Good Farming? Hence, can't we infer that (C) Good soil a prerequisite of good farming?

[giladedelman]

Nope! We're told that it's impossible to "maintain good soil without good farming." So good farming is a prerequisite of good soil, and not the other way around. When we abbreviate the relationship as

good soil --> good farming,

it means that if you have good soil, you must also have good farming. It doesn't mean that if you have good farming, you must have good soil.

Does that answer your question?

[jessncho]

I thought "prerequisite" was referring to the sufficient condition, but I guess it doesn't? So if A --> B, B is actually the prerequisite of A?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly. Think of a prerequisite as a precondition. In other words, it's necessary condition!

[cdjmarmon]

My Kaplan question explanation says this is how the causation chain goes:

culture that maintains natural resources → good farming → good soil → good food → good meal

and (D) is incorrect because: (D) confuses necessity with sufficiency. Although good cultural values are necessary for a good cuisine, they are not sufficient, i.e. they do not guarantee a good cuisine. The fact that good food depends on soil and farming practices does not mean that bad food is necessarily the result of bad soil and farming practices.

I agree with yours but isnt your causation chain opposite? either way it seems that their explanation for (D) matchs with your chain not theirs.

[timmydoeslsat]

I would not refer to this chain in particular as a causation chain. It is a conditional logic chain. We are not given causation in this stimulus.

The chain you have listed is also not commonly used in that manner.

Since we read from left to right, it is common for us to place the sufficient condition on the left and the necessary condition on the right.

[davidko14]

Why should we assume that the opposite of bad soil is good soil. Isn't the opposite not bad soil. If that's the case how can we connect the conditionals?

[fyre182]

Why should we assume that the opposite of bad soil is good soil. Isn't the opposite not bad soil. If that's the case how can we connect the conditionals?

+1 I don't understand why that is possible . . . how does not bad = good?

[joseph.carroll.555]

Why should we assume that the opposite of bad soil is good soil. Isn't the opposite not bad soil. If that's the case how can we connect the conditionals?

+1 I don't understand why that is possible . . . how does not bad = good?

+2 I completely agree. I thought one of the goals of the LSAT was to test our ability to decipher between polar opposites and logical opposites, and yet this doesn't follow those conventions at all.

[tzyc]

Same question here...
Or only for good/bad idea, only either happens? (no neutral?)

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Same question here...
Or only for good/bad idea, only either happens? (no neutral?)

Thanks

Good question guys! I agree with you, I don't have a way to make this matter perfectly clear. I'd just say that they probably should have changed the question stem from "inferred" to "most strongly supported."

Clearly, the test writer wants you to follow that chain that not having bad soil means that you need to have good soil. What neutral soil would look like, I have no idea!

Sometimes on the LSAT you just have to try to figure out what the test writer wants, and give it to 'em.

[LindsayD268]

Can someone explain why C is wrong? Clearly I don't understand the term "prerequisite." How is good soil not a prerequisite to good farming if Good Soil --> Good Farming? Is "prerequisite" introducing a necessary condition?