RebekahD410 Wrote:I still do not understand how the stimulus uses the word anyone and the answer choice uses "everyone". The way I saw this question was
any one with constant awareness has a clouded mind.
the people with constant awareness have a tainted emotional outlook.
but couldn't there be a third group of people?
I just am not understanding how the LSAT is incredibly careful with words but "anyone" and "everyone" are not synonyms. Is there an inference I was supposed to deduce that this problem was ONLY speaking of 2 groups?
Two things, first this is not a MBT but a most strongly supported so there can be a small grey area. That said, I think for this question there really isn't any grey area as the premise and answer choice does a good choice in limiting the scope of the application of who it applies to thanks to the use of conditionals that closely lock and match each other. [unless we dispute the diction used and argue certain words do not really mean the same thing but in this case the fact that the lsat used 'fragility' and 'preciousness' twice is a good indicator that these two conditionals are suppose to relate somehow and our task has to do with connecting the presmises]
Second, "any one with constant awareness has a clouded mind" is the same as saying everyone with a constant awareness has a clouded mind because if we translate the former into a conditional it is ' If constant awareness then clouded mind' , which means everyone with a constant awareness has a clouded mind since if we know you have a constant awareness then you have to have a clouded mind. Also, choice "C" conditions it as not just everyone but only people who have an untainted emotional outlook while the "anyone" in the premise conditions it to people who have a constant awareness so it is not just anyone in society but anyone who meets the certain conditions, which would eliminate the 'third group' of people.