Q16 - People who do not believe

[peg_city]

I'm not sure if I'm mapping this correctly....


Believe that other distrust them (~) -> Confident in own abilities

Conclusion?: Trust other - > Think of a difficult task as a challenge rather then a threat

Confident in own abilities - > think of a difficult task as a challenge rather then a threat?

If this is correct, where is the assumption?

Answer is:

C:People who tend to trust others do not believe that others distrust them

If this is correct, I'm not sure how it's possible to write this out in 1:10-1:30. I took two minutes on the question and still got it wrong...

Thanks again

[noah]

Great question - in both the sense that's it's a tricky oneyou're asking about, and by providing your work, I can see into your mind a bit more .

To start, this is a sufficient assumption question, so it's probably a bit easier to predict than a necessary assumption question.

Let's get the core. Reading the argument, I notice that there is a lot of conditional language, so I'll write out the ideas (and I would write it very similarly to the way you showed it, but I'd abbreviate more):

~ believe others distrust them --> confident
C: trust others --> "challenge" not "threat"

Then I see there's another premise, so I'll try to link it up, which gives me:

~ believe others distrust them --> confident --> "challenge!"
C: trust others --> "challenge!"

Some keys to moving fast are to abbreviate and link up premises as you go, not wait until the end.

Next, I want to identify the gap. I do this by imagining (or actually writing out if you're feeling overwhelmed) the premise of the conclusion on the left, and the conclusion on the right and see where the chain is missing a link:

trust others --> ????? --> "challenge!"

I can fill in a lot on the right:

trust others ---> ????? --> ~ believe others distrust them --> confident --> "challenge!"

But that first connection is missing. I can expect that the answer will fill this gap (and perhaps by giving me the contrapositive). (C) fills the gaps perfectly: trust others --> ~ believe others distrust them, and the chain is complete. Hallelujah!

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is about folks who believe others distrust them, which might mean we're getting the contrapositive of what we need, however it ends with "trust others" which is not the negation of "trust others"!

(B) links confidence to trust, but it's trust in others. We actually don't care about trusting others. The stimulus is about believing whether others distrust you. (BTW, this whole argument makes me feel neurotic about relationships!)

(D) is linking parts of the "challenge!" - no need for that.

(E) is about distrusting others - again, we're not concerned with that.

[hornswaggle]

I approached the question differently. I got the correct answer, but I want to make sure that my reasoning is sound.

Here's what I came up with:

C: People who tend to trust others think of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat.
E: This is precisely how people who are confident in their own abilities regard such tasks.
E: People who do not believe that others distrust them are confident in their own abilities.

The argument seems to be saying, "If you are confident in your own abilities, then you think of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat." At the very least, it seems to be assuming that being confident is somehow correlated to "thinking of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat."

The gap is that the argument doesn’t show that "people who tend to trust others" are confident.

The argument establishes that "people who don’t think others distrust them" are confident. So if "people who tend trust others" also "don’t think others distrust them," then they’re confident, and then they think of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat.

[noah]

I approached the question differently. I got the correct answer, but I want to make sure that my reasoning is sound.

Here's what I came up with:

C: People who tend to trust others think of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat.
E: This is precisely how people who are confident in their own abilities regard such tasks.
E: People who do not believe that others distrust them are confident in their own abilities.

The argument seems to be saying, "If you are confident in your own abilities, then you think of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat." At the very least, it seems to be assuming that being confident is somehow correlated to "thinking of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat."

The gap is that the argument doesn’t show that "people who tend to trust others" are confident.

The argument establishes that "people who don’t think others distrust them" are confident. So if "people who tend trust others" also "don’t think others distrust them," then they’re confident, and then they think of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat.

I think there's a bit of a mistake in thinking (or writing up) when you say this: The gap is that the argument doesn’t show that "people who tend to trust others" are confident.

The gap is actually whether people that trust others don't believe others distrust them.

Overall, I think you might benefit from gonig a bit more formal on a question like this. That said, I never want someone to go more formal than is needed (and I'm usually working with people to "grasp" questions more than diagram them), but you should generally be able to bust out formal notation if you need to.

[hornswaggle]

I understand the argument's logic, but I phrased my response poorly.

Using your notation, the argument demonstrates

believe others distrust (~)--> confident--> challenge!,

but concludes

trust others--> challenge!

The argument is true if

trust others--> believe others distrust (~), meaning that

trust others--> believe others distrust (~)--> confident--> challenge!

Showing that people who trust others don't believe others distrust them (trust others--> believe others distrust (~)) is sufficient to prove that people who trust others perceive difficult tasks as a challenge and not a threat (trust others--> challenge!).

Is that correct?

[noah]

I understand the argument's logic, but I phrased my response poorly.

Using your notation, the argument demonstrates

believe others distrust (~)--> confident--> challenge!,

but concludes

trust others--> challenge!

The argument is true if

trust others--> believe others distrust (~), meaning that

trust others--> believe others distrust (~)--> confident--> challenge!

Showing that people who trust others don't believe others distrust them (trust others--> believe others distrust (~)) is sufficient to prove that people who trust others perceive difficult tasks as a challenge and not a threat (trust others--> challenge!).

Is that correct?

100%

That's strong work on a tough problem.

[pewals13]

Would an answer choice stating "People who tend to trust others are confident in their own abilities" be sufficient despite not linking both premises?

[Mab6q]

Would an answer choice stating "People who tend to trust others are confident in their own abilities" be sufficient despite not linking both premises?

It absolutely would because it would still allow us to establish the conclusion. However, typically the LSAT will make use of all of its conditionals on these types of SA questions.

[jewels0602]

I'm still very unsure of AC B.

I saw that B fit into the sufficient condition like this:

~ believe others distrust --> confidence in one's own abilities --> confidence in the trustworthiness of others --> see challenge.

I can't figure out the fine point of nuance between confidence in trustworthiness of others and trusting others.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks, Jewels. The nuances here are definitely tricky. Maybe it would help to think about characters. Let’s say the characters are you and someone named Carmen.

“Trust others” (TO from here on out) means you trust Carmen. She’s great and reliable and you know you can count on her.

“Believe others distrust” (BOD from here on out) means you believe Carmen is skeptical of you. She regards your statements with a wary eye; you don’t think she believes what you say.

The argument tells us:

Premise: ~BOD --> Confident --> See challenge

Conclusion: TO --> Challenge

Our task is to connect TO to the ~BOD --> Confident --> See challenge chain. The easiest way to do this is to connect TO --> ~BOD. That’s what (C) gives us.

Choice (B) gives us Confident -->TO. This is the reverse of what we are looking for.

Remember: reversed logic is bad logic!

[NatalieC941]

Hello -

I am very confused by this question because of the LR test prep book and the original notations it has on thinking through the problem.

After diagramming the two premises and the conclusion (which makes sense), it says in Chapter 5, pg. 210:

How does "trust others" link to the chain we've given in the premises?

-- believe others trust them --> trust others

Therefore, I thought I was supposed to be looking for THIS in the answer choices, so when I saw B, I thought it was an illegal reversal and crossed it out. The way Noah explained it in his post makes sense (see below), [b][b]but my question as a general rule what triggers what? MPrep book seems to suggest that trust others is the necessary condition, while Noah says it is the sufficient. How will I know/be able to distinguish on this and future problems?[/b][/b]

Noah's annotations from this thread above:
trust others --> ????? --> "challenge!"

I can fill in a lot on the right:

trust others ---> ????? --> ~ believe others distrust them --> confident --> "challenge!"

[EricM282]

Hi Noah,

Wanted to give a heads up-- I encountered this problem on p. 202 of Ch.5 in the LR book. I worked it like you did and got the same answer, but on p. 209-210, where the book works it, their answer seems to be the (incorrect) reversal: -believe others trust them -> trust others

Not sure if this is just a typo or i'm reading the explanation incorrectly...

[ohthatpatrick]

You're absolutely right and that one wasn't in our Errata yet, so thanks a ton!

[mswang7]

I don't understand why the order of answer choice C doesn't matter (I didn't pick bc I thought it was an illegal reversal.
I know I was looking for: don't believe others distrust them ->tend to trust others. The contrapositive of which is " doesn't tend to trust others -> believe others distrust.

C is the exact reversal. Help.

[smiller]

Apologies for our slow reply. We're catching up with some questions in the forums that slipped by us.

I know I was looking for: don't believe others distrust them ->tend to trust others.

That's actually the reverse of what we're looking for.

The premises combine to tell us, "don't believe others distrust them --> challenge not threat." Lets's simplify this as A --> B.

The conclusion shifts to "trust others --> challenge not threat." Let's simplify this as C --> B.

What can we add to the premises, A --> B, that would allow us to reach the conclusion, C --> B? We're looking for C --> A. That would give us C --> A --> B, or C --> B, which is the conclusion. So we're looking for, "trust others --> don't believe others distrust them," which matches answer choice (C).

Does this help?

[JohnK403]

Apologies for our slow reply. We're catching up with some questions in the forums that slipped by us.

I know I was looking for: don't believe others distrust them ->tend to trust others.

That's actually the reverse of what we're looking for.

The premises combine to tell us, "don't believe others distrust them --> challenge not threat." Lets's simplify this as A --> B.

The conclusion shifts to "trust others --> challenge not threat." Let's simplify this as C --> B.

What can we add to the premises, A --> B, that would allow us to reach the conclusion, C --> B? We're looking for C --> A. That would give us C --> A --> B, or C --> B, which is the conclusion. So we're looking for, "trust others --> don't believe others distrust them," which matches answer choice (C).

Does this help?

I still don't get it. Why not A->C->B? Since the conclusion is C->B and the question is asking what follows logically if which one is assumed, A->C->B seems to make sense because it links A->C in order to deduce B.

[Emmeline Ndongue]

Apologies for our slow reply. We're catching up with some questions in the forums that slipped by us.

I know I was looking for: don't believe others distrust them ->tend to trust others.

That's actually the reverse of what we're looking for.

The premises combine to tell us, "don't believe others distrust them --> challenge not threat." Lets's simplify this as A --> B.

The conclusion shifts to "trust others --> challenge not threat." Let's simplify this as C --> B.

What can we add to the premises, A --> B, that would allow us to reach the conclusion, C --> B? We're looking for C --> A. That would give us C --> A --> B, or C --> B, which is the conclusion. So we're looking for, "trust others --> don't believe others distrust them," which matches answer choice (C).

Does this help?

I still don't get it. Why not A->C->B? Since the conclusion is C->B and the question is asking what follows logically if which one is assumed, A->C->B seems to make sense because it links A->C in order to deduce B.

knowing A->C doesn't guarantee that you have C->B. In order to deduce B, you'd still need to assume C->B. The answer choices are unlikely to give you C->B since that'd be a restatement of the conclusion, it'd be correct but it's subject to circular reasoning.