Q14 - Many people think that the

[mrudula_2005]

got this correct but ahh these conditionals always trick me up. how do we translate the first sentence into formal logic. Is it "If remedy the problem of crime --> increase the number of police officers" ? that's what I thought at first, but for E to make sense and just after thinking about the statement, it seems that the arrow goes both ways - if it's the ONLY WAY then it must be sufficient as well, right?

I mean, if the first sentance is merely saying that for many people "increasing the # of police officers" is just necessary to remedying the problem of crime, i don't really see how the statistics breaks that down much - but if many ppl are claiming that it is sufficient as well, then I can clearly see how the statistics and E are compelling.

this is so confusing to me...can you please clarify the rules here?

Thanks a ton!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I appreciate the enthusiasm for conditional logic, but this question is not one where notation should be employed.

Your conversion of the statement is accurate, however, you don't need it to identify the role of the claim within the argument, right? So why not just skip that step and get to your task as defined in the question stem.

There are three claims here.

1. what people think
2. a statistic
3. an outcome that in conjunction with the statistic calls into question what people think

This question is really about the answers and the strength of the argument.

(A) is not established. Maybe it's suggested, but not established.
(B) is on the opposite side of the argument.
(C) is too strong. Nothing is proven.
(D) is too strong. Nothing is demonstrated and it's not that there is no relation between police officers and the crime rate, but that there are other factors to consider.
(E) is the goldilocks answer. Not too strong, not off topic, just right.

Does that clear this one up?

[mrudula_2005]

thanks! so when you said my translation of the first sentence "the only way to remedy the problem of crime is by increasing the # of police officers" was accurate, which did you mean - my initial one (where it is "if remedy the problem of crime --> increasing the # of police officers") or my later one which has the arrow going both ways since the sentence states "the only way"?

thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sorry I meant the way I saw it in the notation.

It's definitely not a double arrow. I know why it feels necessary as well as sufficient. But "the only" really just gives you a sufficient condition.

Watch out for the word "only."

Implies Sufficiency
the only, if only

Implies Necessity
only if, only when, only

It really depends on the words preceding and following "only."

[mcrittell]

Can we expand on C and say that it never proves anything, but more particularly that it never really demonstrates that the other factors are "more important"?

[missbenyamin]

Can we expand on C and say that it never proves anything, but more particularly that it never really demonstrates that the other factors are "more important"?

Yes, because the stimulus does not give us any information about the relative strength of different factors we cannot make any conclusion about which factor is "more important".

[a8l367]

Where it's said that # of PO is influencing crime rate at all?
Where it's suggested that there are other factors?