Q12 - The chairperson should not have released the Election

[jonfarahi]

Can one of the LSAT geeks please explain to my why answer choice C is correct and not A or D?

Thank you in advance!

[christiankson]

If I'm not mistaken, the correct answer choice to this question is A. I'll do my best to explain this question. LSAT geeks please correct any of my errors.

This is a SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION QUESTION, which means that the correct answer choice will fill the gap and make the conclusion absolutely true based on the premises. The first step is to look at the core. It can be broken down into this:

Conclusion: The chairperson should not have released the Election Commission's report to the public.

why? (Premise): The chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission.

What is the gap here? The argument is assuming that the only way it would be allowed for the chairperson to release the report to the public is if he consulted the other members. This is precisely what answer choice A says. According to Answer choice A, since the chairperson did not consult the other members, there was no way he could have gotten their consent. Therefore, we can conclude that he should not have released the report to the public.


C) Is out of scope. The argument is not about how the members feel about the report. The members could have had serious reservations about the report without being consulted by the chairperson.

D) Tempting. The key to this answer choice is the last part which says "had they been consulted." This answer choice essentially leaves open the possibility that the members do not necessarily have to be consulted, which goes against the logic of the argument.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, jonfarahi!

I'm afraid that christiankson is correct, though, that the answer is (A). One of the things that makes (A), (C), and (D) all look tempting, though, is that each of them translate into a conditional that looks like "if BLAHBLAH, then NOT JUSTIFIED". Because all three end up where we want to be, they can all look good at first glance!

Now, christiankson is 100% on target with:

This is a SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION QUESTION, which means that the correct answer choice will fill the gap and make the conclusion absolutely true based on the premises. The first step is to look at the core.

This is exactly right! Great core breakdown and wrong answer analysis too!

Now, many times, the correct answer on a sufficient assumption question of this nature will have a format of "If [premise], then [conclusion]". It would be so nice if we have that here! That answer might have been written as "It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission's report to the public only if some members had been consulted before it was released". This would have translated to "If permissible, then some members consulted", and the contrapositive would have been "if no members consulted, then not permissible to release"! That would have been perfect!

Unfortunately for us, none of the three answers that touch on permissibility/justification give us that connection quite so cleanly. Instead, we need to look for a conditional that we know for sure is triggered by our premise. Consider this example:

My mother got roses today. Therefore, she's happy today.

An awesome sufficient assumption might read "if my mother gets roses, then she is happy". But what if an answer said "If my mother gets flowers, then she will be happy." Is that good enough?

Yes! We know from the premise that my mother got roses, so we know that my mother got flowers. If we add in the answer choices, "if flowers, then happy", that gets us all the way to "my mother is happy"!

Now, it's critical that the conditional be triggered by the premises we already know. If we don't know for certain a conditional is triggered, it's worthless to us in trying to lock up the argument.

Okay, so let's translate each of (A), (C), and (D):

(A) If most members HAVEN'T consented, then release not permissible.
(C) If any members have serious reservations, then release not justified.
(D) If some members would NOT have agreed (had they been consulted), then release not justified.

All we know from the premise is that the members weren't consulted. Of these three conditionals, the only one that gets triggered by premise for certain is (A)! If the members weren't consulted, then they can't possibly have consented! And if (A) is assumed, that means release wasn't permissible, and the argument gets locked up airtight!

If all we know is that they weren't consulted, then we have no idea whether or not they have serious reservations, or whether they would not have agreed, or anything else. So, we can't know that the conditional in either (C) or (D) actually occurred!

For the sake of future students, let's briefly look at (B) and (E)!

(B) actually seems to weaken the argument - if they signed it, that bolsters an argument that release was okay. Regardless, this never connects directly to whether release was permissible/justified!
(E) Member preferences are only relevant if they tell us something about whether release is permissible or not!

Remember, with a sufficient assumption question, the correct answer combined with the premises will guarantee that the conclusion follows. A conditional statement is useless for this if we don't know if it's actually triggered.

Please let me know if this helps clear up a few things!

[ferlisi]

I'm gonna try explaining this question too, mostly for my own benefit, as I missed this question the first time around.

So we have a fairly straightforward argument:

P: The chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission about releasing the report before having it released.
C: Therefore, the chairperson should not have released the Election Commission's report to the public.

So the question stem asks us to find the piece of information that, if accepted to be true, would guarantee the conclusion. When I first read this question, I knew that I needed to somehow link the premise to the conclusion, as the argument only had these two parts.

Something along the lines of: "if the chairperson ddid not consult any other members of the commission about releasing the report, the chairperson should not have released the report" would suffice as an answer.

Now, to the answer choices.

(A) follows closest to my prephase. This is an "only if" statement, meaning that A only if B translates to A --> B. So we have: "It would have been permissible for the chairperson to releases the commission's report to the public only if most other members of the commission had first given their consent. Therefore, if this released report had been been permissible, then most other members of the commission would have first given their consent. And now, the contrapositive of this statement: If most of the members had not first given their consent, then it would not have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission's report to the public.

We know this is the correct answer, and it best matches the prephase, because most of the members did not gave their consent. (Actually, none of them did, as they weren't consulted). Therefore, it was not permissible for the chairperson to release the commission's report to the public. This piece of information guarantees our conclusion.

I originally chose (D), which is definitely wrong because of subtle wording. This answer choice says that the chairperson would have been justified only if each of the commission's members would have agreed to its being released had they been consulted. There's a small difference between this answer choice and answer choice (A), but it makes all the difference in this case. The problem with this choice is that we don't know if the commission's members would have agreed had they been consulted. We only know that they weren't consulted. Therefore, we can't guarantee the conclusion, because we're missing a piece of information.

Furthermore, (C) is also wrong in a similar sense. We don't know if any of the members of the commission had serious reservations about the report's content. And therefore, this answer choice ultimately has no value in our argument. It doesn't guarantee the conclusion.

[contropositive]

I picked D and some are saying D is wrong because it says "member would have AGREED to it had they been consulted" if the word "agreement" is what makes this answer choice wrong then A (the right answer) could be wrong for that same reason. A says "...had first given their CONSENT" consent and agreement are easily the same meaning. the argument is talking about ANY/SOME members whereas answer choice A is talking about MOST members which makes it wrong!!

I swear these test writers sometimes throw in an answer choice that is usually wrong into the choices and make it the right answer by coming up with some weird logic.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm pretty sure you were just venting frustration over this atypical Sufficient Assumption answer choice.

You are correct --- the test writers DO want to take something that is normally right and make it wrong, or vice versa.

They can't just make everything a time-tested formula, or else people would get too good at LSAT and the scoring distribution would no longer be the bell curve it needs to be. So you will ALWAYS see some weird bait-n-switch or misdirection questions that really demand some flexible thinking (or that might make you shake your head and think, "You wily devils. I haven't seen THIS before.")

Naturally, we expect more time-tested formulaic stuff on the easier questions and more curveballs / flexible thinking in the harder 2nd half on an LR section.

I'm not too sure what you meant by anyone in THIS thread disqualifying (D) based on the word "agreed".

I just scanned all the threads and I didn't see anyone doing that. Are you clear on why people were saying (D) was wrong?

Both (A) and (D) provide a rule that could get us to the conclusion.

(A)
Most members did NOT give consent --> shouldn't have released report

(D)
All, had they been consulted, would NOT have agreed --> shouldn't have released report

We're looking at the facts we have available and analyzing which of these two rules can be triggered.

Our fact: no members were consulted.

So you could ask yourself this question: which of these is more rock solid?
No one was consulted --> most members did NOT give consent
vs.
No one was consulted --> no one would have agreed if they HAD been consulted

The first connection is rock solid. If you weren't consulted, you can't give me your consent.

The second connection is debatable. If you weren't consulted, I don't know how to judge the hypothetical of "what if you HAD been consulted? Would you have agreed?"

[ganbayou]

I was not sure about the word *most* in A...the stimulus did not say * most* so I thought *all* members consent is required. why *most* is allowed as an assumption? also I thought even if you want to make contraposition, some and most cannot be contraposited in conditional statement...
I chose D, if this did not say *would* would this be correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

You don’t want to symbolize a quantity sentence like “Most clowns are scary” as a conditional.

Conditional statements are about certainty, while “most” statements are about likelihood.

You technically COULD represent “most” as a conditional.
If clown --> PROBABLY scary.
and the contrapositive would be
If you’re something that’s UNLIKELY TO BE SCARY, then you’re not a clown.

But hopefully you see how crazy and ill-advised that is.

(A) is not a quantity sentence, like “Most A’s are B’s". It is a conditional sentence, as given away by the “only if”.

For example:
If “most senators vote against the bill”, then “the bill will not pass”.

That’s not a quantity statement, not “Most Senators will vote against it”.

It’s a rule … a requirement … a hypothetical that comes with a definite consequence.

(A) provides a rule
If it’s not the case that “most members of the commission have given consent”, then “it is impermissible to release the report”.

Do the facts we were provided with in the evidence trigger that rule?

No members of the commission were consulted. Can we then infer that “it’s not the case that most of them gave consent”? Sure. If you weren’t consulted, how could you possibly give consent?

We know that NO members gave consent, since none of them were consulted about it. That is enough to trigger the rule.

Most = more than 50%.
100% of members did not give consent. !00% is more than 50%, so we have triggered the rule.

What is the consequence of the rule? “It is impermissible to release the report”.

Does that allows us to properly infer (derive) the conclusion? Sure.
Impermissible to release = should not have released

Meanwhile, (D)’s rule says
If it’s not the case that “all members would have agreed if consulted”, then “the report should not have been released”.

Do the facts we were provided with in the evidence trigger that rule?

Nope. All we know is that the members weren’t consulted. There’s no way from that to judge whether or not all members would have agreed HAD they been consulted. All we would need to know to trigger the rule in (D) is ONE person who would NOT have agreed had he/she been consulted. But we don't have even that measly fact from the facts provided.

Your big takeaway from this problem is this:
“Don’t focus on dialing in the perfect language that nails what we want to hear. Focus on whether or not each answer choice does the work of allowing us to derive the conclusion.”

Sufficient Assumption + Evidence = Logically derived Conclusion

That’s what every Sufficient Assumption question is about. Some answers are perfectly measured to the missing idea we anticipated. Some “overfill the arrow” and give us something broader/weirder. The test of whether it’s right or wrong is simply can we add it to what we know from the evidence in order to derive the conclusion.

Hope this helps.

[ganbayou]

You don’t want to symbolize a quantity sentence like “Most clowns are scary” as a conditional.

Conditional statements are about certainty, while “most” statements are about likelihood.

You technically COULD represent “most” as a conditional.
If clown --> PROBABLY scary.
and the contrapositive would be
If you’re something that’s UNLIKELY TO BE SCARY, then you’re not a clown.

But hopefully you see how crazy and ill-advised that is.

(A) is not a quantity sentence, like “Most A’s are B’s". It is a conditional sentence, as given away by the “only if”.

For example:
If “most senators vote against the bill”, then “the bill will not pass”.

That’s not a quantity statement, not “Most Senators will vote against it”.

It’s a rule … a requirement … a hypothetical that comes with a definite consequence.

(A) provides a rule
If it’s not the case that “most members of the commission have given consent”, then “it is impermissible to release the report”.

Do the facts we were provided with in the evidence trigger that rule?

No members of the commission were consulted. Can we then infer that “it’s not the case that most of them gave consent”? Sure. If you weren’t consulted, how could you possibly give consent?

We know that NO members gave consent, since none of them were consulted about it. That is enough to trigger the rule.

Most = more than 50%.
100% of members did not give consent. !00% is more than 50%, so we have triggered the rule.

What is the consequence of the rule? “It is impermissible to release the report”.

Does that allows us to properly infer (derive) the conclusion? Sure.
Impermissible to release = should not have released

Meanwhile, (D)’s rule says
If it’s not the case that “all members would have agreed if consulted”, then “the report should not have been released”.

Do the facts we were provided with in the evidence trigger that rule?

Nope. All we know is that the members weren’t consulted. There’s no way from that to judge whether or not all members would have agreed HAD they been consulted. All we would need to know to trigger the rule in (D) is ONE person who would NOT have agreed had he/she been consulted. But we don't have even that measly fact from the facts provided.

Your big takeaway from this problem is this:
“Don’t focus on dialing in the perfect language that nails what we want to hear. Focus on whether or not each answer choice does the work of allowing us to derive the conclusion.”

Sufficient Assumption + Evidence = Logically derived Conclusion

That’s what every Sufficient Assumption question is about. Some answers are perfectly measured to the missing idea we anticipated. Some “overfill the arrow” and give us something broader/weirder. The test of whether it’s right or wrong is simply can we add it to what we know from the evidence in order to derive the conclusion.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for the reply. just wanted to double check...so overfill in this case is the MOST in A right?
it would be true if the answer said "at least one" but MOST is fine because this is sufficient assumption right?

THank you

[SD999]

For answer choice A, I was wondering if "consult"="consent". For example, the chairperson could've asked the commission (consulted) but didn't heed their recommendation. Is A really making sense in that aspect?

[ohthatpatrick]

They don't mean the same thing, but we know that no one was consulted.

If I never consulted Bob about the report, there's no way he had a way to give me his consent.

You validly pointed out a scenario where you might
HAVE consulted, but NOT HAVE consent

True that.

But if you HAVE NOT consulted someone, you COULD NOT HAVE received their consent. (or so the logic of this problem goes)

Since we know NO ONE was consulted, we know NO ONE gave consent, and thus we can trigger "If most did not give consent ---> "

[andrewgong01]

I understand the correct answer, A, and also why "D" is wrong.

However, I am curious with how to diagram conditionals with two "If"s. Namely, for "D" we have Chairperson justified only if each member agree had they been consulted. Now that I understand "D" better, "had they been consulted" really is adding a caveat to the original and is like an "if" statement. however, that means we have an if statement behind the only if (i.e. an if statement in the necessary condition).

Would this be the way to diagram it :

Justified --> agree if consulted becomes : Justified and Consulted -->then agreed where we move the "if" in the necessary condition into the sufficient condition?

It seems like intuitively we would just say "If justified then the people would have agreed if they had been consulted" where in our head we are able to grasp the caveat in the necessary condition,, which seems somewhat similar to saying "If its justified and people were consulted --> then the people agreed to it

[DominicE471]

What about the fact that choice A says the other members had to FIRST give their consent. Choice D just says they have to agree to it if they're consulted so this could TECHNICALLY happen either before or after the report was released. As a result, we don't know if they were going to disagree with it or not. Perhaps, if they were consulted, they would've agreed. That would make the conclusion wrong. But for A, we know they have to FIRST give consent, so if they weren't consulted before the report was released, they couldn't have given consent first. Thus, making it unjustified.

Please let me know if this reasoning is valid, but choice D also says that EACH of the members have to agree. The support in the stem only says that the chairperson didn't consult ANY member. This implies that at least one needed to be consulted for it to be potentially justified. If every single member had to be consulted, I believe the stem would say something like "the chairperson didn't consult EACH member of the commission."